Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
On 13.04.2010 00:36, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Apr 12 19:57, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Matthew Johnson schrieb:
AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and
depend on jdk, -gcj; rather than what we have at the moment which is a jdk
metapackage and a jdk-gcj metapackage, and you depend on one or the other.
We should come up with a name - gcj-native-helper maybe?
if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not
available, then yes.
Yes, although if you are trying to build a -gcj package on an architecture
which does not have gcj, possibly failing the dependency is actually correct....
No, it's not. All the current packages build on all archs, wether gcj is
available or not, but are empty packages on the archs without gcj (well, just
having the symlinks/copyright files in /usr/share/doc).