On 12.04.2010 11:27, Torsten Werner wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Niels Thykier schrieb:I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a suggestion for a new name, please come with it.i think we should remove default-jdk-builddep. If a package needs gcj-jdk it should be specified as an extra B-D.
no, that seems to be wrong. assume an architecture which doesn't have gcj-jdk (which we had in the past), you'll have a dependency of gcj-jdk [...] which you'll have to change in every package, whereas the current solution doesn't require any package change but java-common.
The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the name, but this should be a distinct package.
CC'ing Enrico; please change that in [1] for now. Matthias[1] http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts1_followup.txt?revision=1136&view=markup