** Changed in: azureus (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Won't Fix
--
Missing dependency on java2-runtime et al.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/174198
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
This was done on purpose -- I've tested Azureus with every Java runtime
on i386 and only showed that Sun Java 5,6, and Icedtea 7 work with
Azureus. If I depended on java2-runtime instead, then defective runtimes
would suffice, and Azureus would not run correctly. If you can
demonstrate another
Depends: icedtea-java7-jre | sun-java6-jre | sun-java5-jre, libcommons-
cli-java, liblog4j1.2-java, libseda-java, libswt3.2-gtk-java
sun-java6-jre provides:
Provides: java-virtual-machine, java2-runtime, java1-runtime
I cannot depend or alt-depend on packages not present in Ubuntu
not invalid
** Changed in: azureus (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid = New
--
Missing dependency on java2-runtime et al.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/174198
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing
I am using Sun Java 6 and being prompted to install Icedtea 7. Those using
java-package to turn the Sun binaries into real packages as opposed to using
sun-java6-jre (et al.) dummy packages, which IIRC contain a post-install script
to download and install the Sun binaries, will find themselves
Is cannot a matter of being contrary to policy, or does including such
references break the repository to the point where installations will
fail?
I would agree that code-wise this is an issue with java-package,
however, the work required to bring java-package into line is several
orders of
I'm quite sure 'cannot' is a matter of policy. If this turns out to be
untrue, I'd be glad to add alternate dependencies on the package names
that java-package churns out. For now, please do mark this against java-
package, and if:
(1) Someone more experienced than me says these alt-deps would be
