Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

[Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>]

Vincent Fourmond writes:
> 
>   Hello Eric,
> 
> Eric Lavarde wrote:
> > I don't see the advantage of this approach over well defined virtual
> > packages, which I notice you seem anyway to implicitly expect
> > (java5-runtime, java5-sdk, etc...).
> > Can you perhaps elaborate a bit on this?
> 
>   Autobuilders cannot work with virtual packages. pbuilder cannot either.

exactly; assume we build with icedtea-jdk on i386 and amd64,
icedtea-jdk-zero on powerpc, cacao on arm and kaffe on ia64,
java-gcj-compat-dev on all other archs, then the proper b-d would look
like:

  icedtea-jdk [i386 amd64], icedtea-jdk-zero [powerpc], cacao [arm], kaffe [ia64], java-gcj-compat-dev [!i386 !amd64 !powerpc !arm !ia64]

instead of

  distro-jdk-builddep

And having a change in one arch changing it's preferred jre/jdk, you
start changing each package ...

plus you can have versioned dependencies on real packages.

  Matthias