Bug#386228: libgcj7-0 (and by extension libgcj7) packaged such that conflicts are inevitable
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > libgcj7-0 (and by extension libgcj7) are packaged such that any
> > soname increment will result in the old versions of libgcj no
> > longer being installable unless the gcj version is also
> > incremented.
>
> won't fix. /usr/lib/gcj-4.1/libjvm.so is in both packages, therefore
> the conflict is needed.
dpkg-deb -c libgcj7_4.1.1-10_i386.deb
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/share/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/share/doc/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/share/doc/gcj-4.1-base/
-rw-r--r-- root/root 485 2004-07-28 19:13 ./usr/share/doc/gcj-4.1-base/README
-rw-r--r-- root/root 10260 2006-01-31 05:33 ./usr/share/doc/gcj-4.1-base/NEWS.gz
-rw-r--r-- root/root 2351 2004-07-28 19:13 ./usr/share/doc/gcj-4.1-base/THANKS.gz
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/lib/
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/lib/gcj-4.1/
-rw-r--r-- root/root 795 2006-07-30 09:03 ./usr/lib/gcj-4.1/libgjsmalsa.la
-rw-r--r-- root/root 8876 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/lib/libgij.so.7.0.0
-rw-r--r-- root/root 21729380 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/lib/libgcj.so.7.0.0
-rw-r--r-- root/root 8044 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/lib/libgjsmalsa.so.0.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/share/doc/libgcj7 -> gcj-4.1-base
lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/lib/libgij.so.7 -> libgij.so.7.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/lib/libgcj.so.7 -> libgcj.so.7.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2006-07-30 09:04 ./usr/lib/libgjsmalsa.so.0 -> libgjsmalsa.so.0.0.0
It could be that it not being in libgcj7 was a bug, and the placement
of libgjsmalsa.so.0 was a bug as well... but at the next soname bump
adding unofficial sonames to the shared libraries in /usr/lib/gcj-4.1
would be a good idea to ease transitions.
Don Armstrong
--
"For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none is possible."
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: