Vincent Fourmond writes: > > Hello Eric, > > Eric Lavarde wrote: > > I don't see the advantage of this approach over well defined virtual > > packages, which I notice you seem anyway to implicitly expect > > (java5-runtime, java5-sdk, etc...). > > Can you perhaps elaborate a bit on this? > > Autobuilders cannot work with virtual packages. pbuilder cannot either.
exactly; assume we build with icedtea-jdk on i386 and amd64, icedtea-jdk-zero on powerpc, cacao on arm and kaffe on ia64, java-gcj-compat-dev on all other archs, then the proper b-d would look like: icedtea-jdk [i386 amd64], icedtea-jdk-zero [powerpc], cacao [arm], kaffe [ia64], java-gcj-compat-dev [!i386 !amd64 !powerpc !arm !ia64] instead of distro-jdk-builddep And having a change in one arch changing it's preferred jre/jdk, you start changing each package ... plus you can have versioned dependencies on real packages. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]