Jon Dowland wrote:
Any reason you can't just depend on fastjar?
That's what I am doing, right now. But, if a user has another jar
implementation installed, it's not ideal to force them to install
fastjar rather than use their preferred one.
You said it was a build-dep. There is nothing
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 08:02:34AM +0100, Marcus Better
wrote:
You said it was a build-dep.
Yes.
There is nothing wrong with forcing a user to install
fastjar in order to build the package.
I rather disagree: it's a disservice to our user's to force
them to do anything, if it isn't
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm very sorry but I haven't actually *tried*
this patch. I can try it next week, when I return to
work.
I've now tried this patch with sun-j2sdk1.5 and it works.
I can try some other JDKs (blackdown, IBM) tomorrow.
Package: java-package
Version: 0.28
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
I have a program which requires an implementation of jar at
build-time. The Build-Depends line is non-trivial because nobody
specifies a jar virtual package.
Please adjust the sdk packages to Provides: jar.
Patch attached.
Hi
On Friday 27 October 2006 05:26, Jon Dowland wrote:
I have a program which requires an implementation of jar at
build-time. The Build-Depends line is non-trivial because nobody
specifies a jar virtual package.
Any reason you can't just depend on fastjar?
Package: fastjar
Uncompressed
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 06:03:19AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
Any reason you can't just depend on fastjar?
That's what I am doing, right now. But, if a user has another jar
implementation installed, it's not ideal to force them to install
fastjar rather than use their preferred one.
--
Jon
6 matches
Mail list logo
