Re: status on picard-tools and issue with libsnappy-java
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:06:46AM +0200, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Le 8/13/12 1:35 PM, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> > 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
> > behind.
> I'd rather like avoiding a removal.
> I'd still prefer packaging a v1.0.3 ( with an epoch)
I agree that this is also my prefered solution but if the package say
should be maintained in addition to libsnappy-java ... but without an
epoch IMHO, because these are distinct packages without a common
history. Or am I missing something?
> that conflicts with the current version
I do not see any reason for a conflict if the file names are different.
> and a picard-tools that recomments 1.0.3.
> If 1.0.3 is not present, it does not matter, picard-tools will work. It
> is only "mandatory" for picard-tools building.
IMHO the only thing what we need to do in picard-tools is changing the
class dependencies from snappy.jar to snappy1.0.3.jar which should do
I tried something along this path and created
However, when doing so I noticed that all downloadable versions
snappy-java-1.0.3.[1-3].tar.gz are unfortunately NOT featuring our
target class LoadSnappy. I wonder whether somebody could contact
picard-tools upstream again what exact version they are using (and
perhaps nagging again that finally using unmaintained code is definitely
not a good idea - beeing angry about ABI changes or not.)