Your message dated Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:25:33 +0200 with message-id <4C68D9DD.8010502@thykier.net> and subject line java-common: Virtual packages "jar" and "javadoc" has caused the Debian Bug report #166370, regarding java-common: Virtual packages "jar" and "javadoc" to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 166370: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=166370 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: java-common: Virtual packages "jar" and "javadoc"
- From: Steven Barker <steve@blckknght.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:00:35 -0400
- Message-id: <20021025190035.GA29694@uiuc.edu>
Package: java-common Version: 0.16 Severity: wishlist I think the java policy should, in addition to specifying the use of java-virtual-machine, java-compler and java{1,}-runtime, also recommend the use of the virtual packages "jar" and "javadoc" to ensure a package that provides the alternatives /usr/bin/jar and /usr/bin/javadoc is installed. Without such virtual packages, a build-dependancy on java-compiler and java1-runtime does not ensure the existance of either of those programs (for example, they can be satisfied by jikes-classpath and classpath). Debian policy says there has to be consensus on any virtual package that is intended to be used by many packages of from different sources, so I think java-policy and the java- is the place to decide on these. - -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux ivanhoe.blckknght.org 2.4.19-local #1 Mon Sep 9 00:10:27 EDT = 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=3Den_US, LC_CTYPE=3D - -- no debconf information -- Steven Barker steve@blckknght.org Swap read error. You lose your mind. Get my GnuPG public key at: http://www.blckknght.org/publickey.asc Fingerprint: 272A 3EC8 52CE F22B F745 775E 5292 F743 EBD5 936BAttachment: pgpcypmH7EuTq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 166370-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: java-common: Virtual packages "jar" and "javadoc"
- From: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:25:33 +0200
- Message-id: <4C68D9DD.8010502@thykier.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi I am closing this policy change proposal; it is marked as wontfix and a conflicting policy change has been accepted. Should you believe that this proposal is still relevant and superior to the conflicting policy change, please do not hesitate to reopen this bug. ~Niels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREIAAYFAkxo2dwACgkQVCqoiq1YlqwdWwCg684/ZHJ/n6bmmnhuS1uSk5wC XY0AnjZ2WnHDdtB2mZQqebAGe+SgswZm =pSuQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---