Bug#622396: wrong and harmful needless-dependency-on-jre
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-04-12 20:57, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.4.3
> Severity: important
>
> Hi,
>
> apparently the new lintian added new wrong tags. E.g.:
>
> W: libreoffice-gcj: needless-dependency-on-jre
> N:
> N: The package appear to be a Java library and depending on one or more
> N: JRE/JDK packages. As of 05 Apr 2010, the Java Policy no longer mandates
> N: that Java libraries depend on Java Runtimes.
> N:
> N: If the library package ships executables along with the library, then
> N: please consider making this an application package or move the binaries
> N: to a (new) application package.
> N:
> N: If there is otherwise a valid reason for this dependency, please
> N: override the tag.
> N:
> N: Refer to
> N: http://packages.qa.debian.org/j/java-common/news/20100405T221415Z.html
> N: and http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=227587 for details.
> N:
> N: Severity: normal, Certainty: possible
> N:
> W: libreoffice-gcj: needless-dependency-on-jre
> W: libreoffice-gcj: needless-dependency-on-jre
> W: libreoffice-gcj: needless-dependency-on-jre
> W: libreoffice-gcj: needless-dependency-on-jre
> W: libreoffice-gcj: needless-dependency-on-jre
>
Right, the repeated tag is a mistake on my account.
> Hmm.
>
> A package which sole purpose is to provide jars compiled to jar.sos for use with gcj
> shouldn't depen on gcj? So that installing it would be a no-op and "thus rendering this
> package useless". Actually I'd argue that a -gcj package not depending on gcj-jre (or
> whatever else similar) is RC-buggy (serious). Therefore the severity, I consider this
> warning harmful, as it surely will cause people to get rid of the dependency.
>
As far as I know openjdk-6 can also benefit from these -gcj packages.
At least that is how I read this email from Matthias Klose[1]:
"""
the [libX-gcj] packages do make sense for architectures which only come
with the ZeroVM in OpenJDK, and no JIT.
"""
If that is truly the case, I see no reason why people should be forced
to have all of gcj just to have some optimized packages that also work
with openjdk-6.
By the way, could I convince you to have a look at #620829? If there is
any obvious issue or anything with the checks there so we can fix them
before the next release. :)
> Regards,
>
> Rene
>
> [...]
> __
> This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
> <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use
> debian-java@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
>
~Niels
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2010/03/msg00124.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=5Stz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: