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

Bug#609665: libgcj10: please provide ABI virtual package



Hi,

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:51:37PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>  - the version of _lenny_ of java-gcj-compat is installed (from gcc
>    4.3.2, libgcj9)

Where we again are in your broken system config with stable being on
highest priio but your system being (almost) completely unstable (even
base-files got upgraded), but anyways...

> In that situation, LibreOffice at runtime uses the Lenny gcj/gij/...,
> which does not work with the .jar.so file in libreoffice-gcj (because
> compiled with gcj 4.4.5).
> 
> To avoid that situation, libreoffice-gcj needs a dependency on "a
> version of libgcj-jre that wraps around/symlinks a version of
> libgcjN, for a good value of N, that works with .jar.so files
> generated by the gcj used at compile-time".
> 
> If I understood well, this would be a versioned dependency on
> libgcj-jre (probably ">= 4.4.5-1~"), or maybe a dependency on

doesn't exist.

> gcj-4.4-jre. But the information of the "-4.4-" or the ">= 4.4.5-1~"
> has to come from src:gcc somehow (I guess with the same versioning as
> in the .shlibs file). Maybe a dpkg subst variable, maybe through a

Yep.

> dependency-only package, or a virtual package.

Yes, seems so. But a dependency on gcj-4.4-jre will not force you anything,
gij,gcj etc. can still point to anything, gcj-4.4-jre just brings you an
empty package which brings you gcj-4.4-jre-headless, which gives you gij-4.4,
gcj-4.4 via it's dependencies, not "gij" or "gcj" or whatever your "java" might
point to.

> Rene, could you please confirm that my understanding, and the above
> explanation is now correct, or else explain what the problem is?

I don't know what the problem is, but I think you are at least not wrong. The question
is what to add where to make it safe, maybe doko can help here?
Except maybe a Conflicts against gcj/gij << version-libreoffice-gcj-build-with,
but that's error-prone, too I think...

Grüße/Regards,

René



Reply to: