[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#239309: marked as done ([JAVA POLICY] can't find working java on install when JAVA_HOME not set)

Your message dated Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:01:03 +0200
with message-id <4BC1B9FF.1000002@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: [Java Policy] no dependencies on real java versions
has caused the Debian Bug report #228532,
regarding [JAVA POLICY] can't find working java on install when JAVA_HOME not set
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
228532: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=228532
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: eclipse-jdt
Version: 2.1.2-1
Severity: normal


unless one sets the JAVA_HOME environment variable _before_ installing
the package, it failes on line 27 of eclipse-jdt.postinst
maybe a dialog should ask for the location of the jre?

regs,
klaus


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.4.20040318.18
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages eclipse-jdt depends on:
ii  ant                           1.6.1-1    Java based build tool like make
ii  eclipse-javac                 2.1.2-1    Eclipse Java compiler and ant plug
ii  eclipse-platform              2.1.1-3    Eclipse platform without plug-ins 
ii  junit                         3.8.1-5    Automated testing framework for Ja

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi

I am closing this nearly 6 old bug, since the original problems in
eclipse are gone and I believe the virtual packages are better these
days (although not perfect).

If there is still an interest, please write back with a bit more
concrete proposal and we will look at it.

~Niels

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: