Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

Hi Matthias, 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? Thanks, Eric Matthias Klose wrote: [sent to

Processed: submitter 395372

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 submitter 395372 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug#395372: java-common: [policy] relax or expand the binaries in /usr/bin restriction (2.3) Changed Bug submitter from Jon Dowland [EMAIL

Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

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.

Processed: submitter 395374

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 submitter 395374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug#395374: java-common: [policy] clarify whether java-policy is normative Changed Bug submitter from Jon Dowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL

Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

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

Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 03:46:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: [sent to debian-java@lists.debian.org and [EMAIL PROTECTED] For packaging we currently use a build dependency on a package which we did agree for packaging (java-gcj-compat-dev). Now with other more conformant Java