On Mon Apr 12 10:56, Vincent Fourmond wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote: > > As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs > > (openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages. > > However, some people are not aware of this and looking at the name of > > the package they assume it is the Java Team's "Default Build-Dependency" > > or in other words the "Right Thing" (tm) to Depend on to get a java > > compiler. > > > > 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. > > default-jdk-native default-jdk-jni ? -gcj please, it's not needed just for for JNI, that should be clear. I also agree that there's no need to have a default-jdk+gcj builddep, you can just depend on both if you need both. I don't know whether gcj-jdk is suitable for that, if not then a similarly named meta-package. > > Once we have found a new I suggest we clean up our own packages and bug > > the few packages outside the Java Team that actually produces -gcj > > packages before making default-jdk-builddep an alias of default-jdk. > > I think this will be easier than teaching the rest of Debian that > > default-jdk-builddep should be default-jdk - particularly because this > > mistake has found its way into the AM process[1], so currently new DDs > > are taught this mistake is the "Right Thing" (tm). > > Shouldn't default-jdk-builldep simply be removed ? It makes sense to > b-d on a JDK to build packages... No need for an additional builddep. > Of course, this will need transitioning, but anyway we want to make > sure that what is now -builddep will only be used when gcj packages > are produced. > > What about a lintian warning when Build-depending on -builddep but > not producing gcj packages ? That should be very easy to do. I concur, and we should fix the AM process ASAP. There's no reason to keep a useless meta package around any longer than we need to. It can't be hard to scan the sources file and find out what depends on -builddep and doesn't create a gcj package, we should just fix those. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature