Re: status on picard-tools and issue with libsnappy-java
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:07:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> For libsnappy-java, since it still only has 10 Popcon users, of which I already
> contribute 2 or 3 points because I develop on multiple machines, we can also do
> something very "dark side", that is a) downgrade libsnappy-java to 1.0.3 using
> an epoch, and b) request its removal from Wheezy.
Its dirty but probably solves the problem in a way that causes the least
work for us currently. However, I think the popcon count is anyway
"alarming" enough to assume that we might leave some unhappy users
> Note to the other readers: this is really something that usually should not be
> done. Please forget what you read !
What did you wrote? Probably need to start reading from top because I
forgot what was written there. ;-)
> What do you think ?
I have a slight preference for Oliviers suggestion and I'd be fine with
waiting once he is back from holidays. We should keep the dirtier
method (which was in some mail I need to reread because I forgot) in
mind if something might cause any problem.
There might be a third way that also qualifies as dirty solution: As I
said we could inject LoadSnappy.java as patch and by doing so build the
package successfully. Then we could *Conflict* picard-tools with
libsnappy-java to make sure that the class is not found at execution
time. Could you please exlpain again the advantage of having libsnappy
for the picard-tools user?