On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 22:14:20 -0800 tony mancill
wrote:
> In this specific case, we should create a separate binary package for
> the wrappers that depends on a Java runtime, since it is technically
> against Java Policy [1] for a library package to depend on a runtime.
> That would also address bu
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:14:16PM +0100, Olivier Cailloux wrote:
> Please rather recommend “java-runtime-headless” if libbatik-java also
> works with java 8, or otherwise, consider some appropriate means to
> recommend any headless jre from 11 onwards.
One other comment (and a note of caution) is
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:14:16PM +0100, Olivier Cailloux wrote:
> Package: libbatik-java
> Version: 1:0.95.dfsg-5
>
> The libbatik-java package currently recommends “default-jre”, itself
> depending on “default-jre-headless (= 2:1.11-72) [not hppa]”, itself
> depending on “openjdk-11-jre-headles
Package: libbatik-java
Version: 1:0.95.dfsg-5
The libbatik-java package currently recommends “default-jre”, itself
depending on “default-jre-headless (= 2:1.11-72) [not hppa]”, itself
depending on “openjdk-11-jre-headless [not hppa]”. But libbatik-java
would work equally well with any posterior ve
4 matches
Mail list logo
