Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Enrico Zini <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> 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.
>>  http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts1_followup.txt?revision=1136&view=markup
> I'm more than happy to change it, but since  is my understanding of
> the situation, obviously my understanding is wrong.
> I don't quite understand what is wrong with , so you'd help me
> considerably by sending me a patch on how you'd like  to be changed.
Probably completely dropping this paragraph is the best solution:
"The same technique is for example adopted by the Java maintainers
without using build-essential but by providing a default-jdk-builddep
metapackage that people can build-depend on."