Bug#397045: ant - java-gcj-compat-dev as dependency

[Paul Cager]

Michael Koch wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 01:35:12AM +0000, Paul Cager wrote:
>> Currently:
>>
>> Depends: java-gcj-compat | java-virtual-machine, java-gcj-compat |
>>    java1-runtime | java2-runtime, libxerces2-java
>> Recommends: ant-optional, jikes | java-compiler
>>
>> Should ant Depend or Suggest the compiler packages? I'd say Depend, but
>> I suppose its not an absolute dependency - you could have a buildfile
>> that doesn't call javac.
> 
> Recommends is the right thing. Its no hard dependency but its the
> used/needed in most cases. Recommends are installe by default by aptitude
> and synaptic but you can choose to deinstall or not install at all the
> compiler. IMO that bug should just be closed as people need to be aware
> what they break when they dont install the Recommends.
> 
> From the Debian Policy 7.2:
> 
> Recommends
>  
>  This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency. 
>  
>  The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
>  with this one in all but unusual installations. 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael

I must learn not to write these things late at night - where I'd written
Suggest, I meant Recommend.

apt-get won't, of course, install the recommended packages, but I don't
think I can put up any strong defence for "Depends", which is defined in
the policy as:

    "required ... to provide a significant amount of functionality"

I admit defeat and agree it should be Recommends.

The warning message "unable to locate tools.jar" is a bit cryptic, but
it should be followed later by an error "Unable to find a javac
compiler". Is there anything else we could do to make it more obvious to
the user that he/she needs to install a compiler? Amend the package's
description maybe? Expand the Debian Java FAQ?