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. > > Sorry for not following up on this sooner. What do you feel about this solution; we rename "default-jdk-builddep" to "gcj-native-helper" and have it only pull gcj-jdk (if available) or nothing at all. When updating Build-rdepends we will have to add default-jdk as well to get the default-java as well. The rationale being that it is not there to provide a default-jdk, but what you need to create gcj packages. We have a "short transition" period where gcj-native-helper provides default-jdk-builddep and still Depends on default-jdk while we fix our packages. Once that is done we remove the provides and the Depends on default-jdk. According to my build-rdeps we got 85 B-D uses of default-jdk-builddep, so the transition may be a bit longer than "short". Since we are planning to do a rename + removal and be done with it, I do not think we should file a request for lintian to check for this. I doubt anyone will use gcj-native-helper instead of default-jdk after the rename. ~Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature