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

Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 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.

Sorry for not following up on this sooner.

What do you feel about this solution; we rename "default-jdk-builddep"
to "gcj-native-helper" and have it only pull gcj-jdk (if available) or
nothing at all.
  When updating Build-rdepends we will have to add default-jdk as well
to get the default-java as well. The rationale being that it is not
there to provide a default-jdk, but what you need to create gcj packages.

We have a "short transition" period where gcj-native-helper provides
default-jdk-builddep and still Depends on default-jdk while we fix our
packages. Once that is done we remove the provides and the Depends on
  According to my build-rdeps we got 85 B-D uses of
default-jdk-builddep, so the transition may be a bit longer than "short".

Since we are planning to do a rename + removal and be done with it, I do
not think we should file a request for lintian to check for this. I
doubt anyone will use gcj-native-helper instead of default-jdk after the


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: