Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:44:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt > index 2c2a175..ac98261 100644 > --- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt > +++ b/virtual-package-names-list.txt > @@ -161,8 +161,16

Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:39:33PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit : > >> > >>> Could you pleas

Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit : > > > Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine > > whether > > java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be kept ? > > Hi Bil

Bug#528306: default-jre-headless: circular dependency hell

Package: default-jre-headless Version: 1.5-31 Severity: important Hello Debian Java Mailing List, There is a circular dependency between default-jre-headless, java-gcj-compat-headless, libbcel-java, liblog4j1.2-java, libmx4j-java and libregexp-java: default-jre-headless:Depends: java-gcj-c

Bug#285303: java-common: Typo in JAVA policy

Package: java-common Version: 0.22 Severity: normal Hello Debian Java maintainers, I found several typos in the Java policy. The corrections have to be taken with a grain of salt since I am not a native speaker and I know next to nothing about JAVA. This is a diff of the text version with