On 2013-02-21 15:32, tony mancill wrote: > On 02/19/2013 12:58 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> [...] >>> For (2), I see benefit in java-package generating a Provides line that >>> is similar to what is generated by the openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 packages. >> >> I'll try to do that, or at least add java<n-1>-runtime and >> java<n-2>-runtime to the list. >> >> >>> The Java Policy [1] is outdated in this area, so it's useful to have >>> this discussion. >> >> What is the process to get the policy updated? > > That is a good question - one that I don't know the answer to. Niels > may care to comment (or I may badger him about it via private email once > the release is done). > > Cheers, > tony >
Hey, Sorry for the long delay on this. Updates to the java policy is usually done by filing a bug against java-common. If needed we will debate it on d-java@l.d.o (the bug itself will end on this list). Once we are happy with the change and someone has written a patch against java-common, we'll commit it and it will be in effect with the next upload of java-common. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51617319.2050...@thykier.net
