[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#456429: marked as done (java-gcj-compat: Downgrade libmx4j-java to Recommends or Suggests)

Your message dated Fri,  7 May 2010 18:44:41 +0200 (CEST)
with message-id <20100507164442.220D26B9F@getsu.thykier.net>
and subject line Package java-gcj-compat has been removed from Debian
has caused the Debian Bug report #456429,
regarding java-gcj-compat: Downgrade libmx4j-java to Recommends or Suggests
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
456429: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=456429
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: java-gcj-compat
Version: 1.0.77-2
Severity: wishlist

From the package description of libmx4j-java, I can't imagine why it should be 
considered absolutely essential to the functioning of java-gcj-compat.  And 
in fact, in some tests forcing the installation of java-gcj-compat-dev 
without it, it (and the base functionality of java-gcj-compat running ant) 
appears to work just fine.

The reason I'm requesting this is that currently, my pbuildd scripts to break 
cycles in the Build-Depends of the Debian archive need approximately 20-30 
scripts for libmx4j-java and all its build-dependencies, many of which 
shouldn't really be needed in my opinion.

Also, by the way, I've been wondering about the idea of including the 
ant-optional tasks in the relevant packages they apply to, instead of in a 
monolithic ant-optional package.  That would eliminate a few more of the 
cycle-breaker scripts, and besides that would make more sense in general, 
IMHO.

Anyway, all of this is completely up to you.  If there's a good reason for the 
dependency on libmx4j-java to be unconditional, then feel free to just close 
this bug, or at least tag it wontfix, with an explanation of why.
-- 
Daniel Schepler

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 1.0.80-5.1+rm

You filed the bug http://bugs.debian.org/456429 in Debian BTS
against the package java-gcj-compat. I'm closing it at *unstable*, but it will
remain open for older distributions.

For more information about this package's removal, read
http://bugs.debian.org/577265. That bug might give the reasons why
this package was removed and suggestions of possible replacements.

Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question.

Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

--
Niels Thykier

--- End Message ---
Reply to: