On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:16:38PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote: > > > IMO its now the best time to get rid of this package totally. > > FWIW, I'd forgotten that java-gcj-compat-dev even existed until your > mailout to d-d-announce last month ("GCJ 4.1 transition"). In this > mailout you ask maintainers of JNI packages to use > -I/usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/include, which relies on symlinks provided > by java-gcj-compat and java-gcj-compat-dev. > > Having said that, I don't particularly care if those packages stay or > go. However, if they go then I'd love another mailout explaining the > new preferred long-term way of building against jni.h (or, if we are > meant to switch to relying on default include paths, some indication > that you plan to keep the gcc/gcj versions in sync).
You are right. I', inconsistent on this. It's because I still see libgnujaxp-java as part of a JDK replacement. Which it is not anymore as its merged into GNU classpath. In the past when libgnujaxp-java was needed to provide JDK compatibility we should have avoided a (Build-)Depends on a JDK replacement like java-gcj-compat because of circular dependencies. Thats now gone and the correct way would be the above as you said. Sorry for being so split-minded. If you wanna to another upload please use java-gcj-compat-dev. Otherwise we should work on the removal of the package. Cheers, Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]