Matthias Klose wrote: > Santiago Vila writes: > > Is there any particular reason why gcj does not set up a symlink > > javac -> gcj using the alternatives mechanism, as jikes used to do before > > Bug #43730 was reported? > > an alternative should only be provided, if a reasonable set of options > match. Unfortunately the options for gcj and javac are rather > disjunct. For java/gij, Stephen Zander provided a wrapper script. I'd > happy to include such a script for javac/gcj as well. > > > ( The new gettext-0.11 checks for a java compiler named "javac" but it > > does not find "gcj". I'm not sure who exactly to blame for this :-) > > everybody knowing of this and not writing a wrapper could be blamed ;-)
Would it be acceptable, then, if I make gettext to Build-Depend on a specific Java compiler, once I check it works with such compiler? For example, would "Build-Depends: gcj" be acceptable?
