On Sun Aug 22 14:41, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Niels Thykier | 2010-08-21 16:13:34 [+0200]: > > >Personally I am okay with doing it and it is the intention of the Java > >Team to make openjdk the default on all architectures. The question is > >if we should do it now or after Squeeze (CC'ed the release team) for > >their comments. > > The problem with the default-jdk is that most architectures have openjdk > as default. Some packages however don't build with default-jdk != > openjdk. One of them on top of my head is jffi without openjdk-6 [0] > with [1]. Then that's a bug, that package must build-depend on openjdk specifically. > The problem with packages like default-jdk is that they pull in > different packages on different systems leading to different behaviors > and bugs. I don't like it :) default-jdk is there so that whenever we add a new arch to openjdk, or have to remove it, we don't have to update every single java package from openjdk [foo, bar, baz] | gcj-4.4 [quux]. Most java packages work with all the jdks we support and don't need to know about architecture-specific issues. Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature