Re: where is eclipse?
On 06/09/2013 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 06/09/13 21:55, Robert Millan wrote:
>> The way I see it, as things stand now it makes a lot more sense to
>> bypass default-jdk in order to get things working...
> What do you mean by that? To tighten the build-dependencies of eclipse
> and others, that can't build with gcj?
>
> I think the risk is that openjdk-7 could be removed from kfreebsd-* in
> sid at the request of the maintainer, if we're unable to keep it
> building+working. We may then lose packages that FTBFS without it (but
> if we don't change, we'd never have had them in the first place). Other
> packages should fall back to gcj and still be okay.
I think that pushing to upstream the changes done for the Kfreebsd port
would be the way
to ensure that it is maintained...
> It seems we could go ahead without treating this like a transition. I
> was thinking we may want to ask the Release Team for rebuilds of some
> already-built packages to use the new java-defaults. Even if that's
> refused, it's still not a problem. And given the risk of maybe losing
> openjdk-7 or otherwise having to go back to gcj, maybe we shouldn't
> bother doing that at all.
>
> So, what do you say we just go ahead with changing java-defaults?
>
I think it is the best solution that we have for Kfreebsd currently.
Sylvestre
Reply to: