On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:25:02AM +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote: > Hello > > > On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 13:27 +0200, Eric Lavarde wrote: > > Hi, > > > > browsing through the repositories to check some Java stuff, I find quite > > some confusion around virtual packages: > > I would also like to have this spelled out somewhere. Though policy's > requirement, for virtual packages to appear in the list of virtual > packages, is only a SHOULD, it would be good to have this in place. > > 3.6 Virtual Packages > [...] > All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, > and arrange to create new ones if necessary. They should not use > virtual package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating > group of packages) unless they have been agreed upon and appear > in the list of virtual package names. (See also Virtual packages > - Provides, Section 7.4) > [...] > > Like Eric, I am not sure what to depend on (right now I am > build-depending on "default-jdk-builddep" which I found somewhere in the > archive, and which is not really correct, since I require a java 5 > compatible SDK.
Debian supports only Java 5+ compatible runtimes in unstable. Cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]