Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
On 12.04.2010 11:27, Torsten Werner wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Niels Thykier schrieb:
I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a
suggestion for a new name, please come with it.
i think we should remove default-jdk-builddep. If a package needs
gcj-jdk it should be specified as an extra B-D.
no, that seems to be wrong. assume an architecture which doesn't have gcj-jdk
(which we had in the past), you'll have a dependency of gcj-jdk [...] which
you'll have to change in every package, whereas the current solution doesn't
require any package change but java-common.
The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the name, but this
should be a distinct package.
CC'ing Enrico; please change that in  for now.