Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
On 13.04.2010 00:52, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Tue Apr 13 00:46, Matthias Klose wrote:
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).
Retaining that behaviour is certainly possible, but surely it's better to only
build the packages on certain arches? If that's hard to do someone probably
needs to write a tool...
Did you read me reply in this thread? It's a design decision between changing
one package or all packages building -gcj binary packages, if one architecture
doesn't build gcj. We did have this state often enough in the past. Please
don't try to "fix" something which doesn't need to be "fixed".