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

Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On Mon Apr 12 10:56, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
> > As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs
> > (openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages.
> >  However, some people are not aware of this and looking at the name of
> > the package they assume it is the Java Team's "Default Build-Dependency"
> > or in other words the "Right Thing" (tm) to Depend on to get a java
> > compiler.
> >
> > 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.
>   default-jdk-native default-jdk-jni ?

-gcj please, it's not needed just for for JNI, that should be clear. I also
agree that there's no need to have a default-jdk+gcj builddep, you can just
depend on both if you need both. I don't know whether gcj-jdk is suitable for
that, if not then a similarly named meta-package.

> > Once we have found a new I suggest we clean up our own packages and bug
> > the few packages outside the Java Team that actually produces -gcj
> > packages before making default-jdk-builddep an alias of default-jdk.
> >  I think this will be easier than teaching the rest of Debian that
> > default-jdk-builddep should be default-jdk - particularly because this
> > mistake has found its way into the AM process[1], so currently new DDs
> > are taught this mistake is the "Right Thing" (tm).
>   Shouldn't default-jdk-builldep simply be removed ? It makes sense to
> b-d on a JDK to build packages... No need for an additional builddep.
> Of course, this will need transitioning, but anyway we want to make
> sure that what is now -builddep will only be used when gcj packages
> are produced.
>   What about a lintian warning when Build-depending on -builddep but
> not producing gcj packages ? That should be very easy to do.

I concur, and we should fix the AM process ASAP. There's no reason to keep a
useless meta package around any longer than we need to.

It can't be hard to scan the sources file and find out what depends on
-builddep and doesn't create a gcj package, we should just fix those.


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: