Re: RFC: docbook-xsl-saxon (Java extensions for use with DocBook XML stylesheets (Saxon))
Hello Daniel,
Sorry for the late answer.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 02:12:56AM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> I receive these informational objects from lintian:
>
> I: docbook-xsl-saxon source: build-depends-without-arch-dep ant
> I: docbook-xsl-saxon source: build-depends-without-arch-dep
> java-gcj-compat-dev
>
> Now I'm unsure, if lintian is right here. The clean target is defined in
> an ant makefile (build.xml). So ant and java are both used in the clean
> target. To my understanding of Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep, I
> have to list at least ant in Build-Depends, not in Build-Depends-Indep.
> I'm not sure about java-gcj-compat-dev, because java-gcj-compat provides
> the java binary.
I have to say, we ignore this for now. We put ant and the runtime into
Build-Depends-Indep and live with a broken clean target. As the clean
target normally only deletes stuff you can simply do some rm calls in it
and done use ant/runtime.
> The package builds fine with kaffe and gcj-java-compat-dev. BTW: Do both
> use ecj to compile the source? If yes, where is the difference, if I use
> gcj-java-compat-dev or kaffe as build-dependency? I'm sorry for the
> questions, but this is my first Java package and I'm trying to learn
> more about Java packaging for Debian.
Both use ecj. They generally produce the same output. Some time ago we
decided to make java-gcj-compat the default runtime to use in Debian and
Ubuntu. It supports most archs and is/was the default runtime in Ubuntu.
This had the advantage that we have very few differences between Debian
and Ubuntu and can merge fixes between the both very easily.
I hope my answers help a bit.
Cheers,
Michael
Reply to: