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

Re: Clear definition of default-java and its scope

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> No. This should not be done. Relying on an alternative for a build makes
> problems much harder to debug, if you first have to find out which
> alternative is actually used, and which alternative is used for the build.
> I am fine with improving user experience, but the change in the proposed
> form will obfuscate the build process.

Niels did not propose to use alternatives for building packages. His
proposal is fully backwards compatible as far as I understood it.


Reply to: