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

2008-03-03 Thread Eric Lavarde
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

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

2008-03-03 Thread Vincent Fourmond
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.

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

2008-03-03 Thread Matthias Klose
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

2008-03-03 Thread Michael Koch
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