On Mon Apr 12 19:57, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Matthew Johnson schrieb: >>> 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. >> >> We should come up with a name - gcj-native-helper maybe? > > if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not > available, then yes. Yes, although if you are trying to build a -gcj package on an architecture which does not have gcj, possibly failing the dependency is actually correct.... Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature