On Mon Apr 12 13:58, Matthias Klose wrote: >> >> -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. > > No. It shouldn't be an extra build-dependency. See my followup to Torsten. AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and depend on jdk, -gcj; rather than what we have at the moment which is a jdk metapackage and a jdk-gcj metapackage, and you depend on one or the other. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature