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.
Torsten
Reply to: