-----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 > [email protected] 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/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNpK1WAAoJEAVLu599gGRCWP4P/jgHzhgzXGf0ZEtnK8PTpQlJ rmg42Jw/eoEYPLimJVSLW868WYdOH9qyQlcgqwLc9T5czNHAAnCRThXZE98Cn4el dLE7ojRkpFa2ypNpd6ZFERk+GtT3UE3i3IKb1Voz3YbKBQZQI6S1a2t0bnWUNyEc G2jEcEn383wUCz9IX6AQfrMN90a0DYc5BEZHsScd2tyJplALoqur9oTBu22w1nzz mgve17L4SMyeOAgBvlcW3NkW4A9ZB31UQpyAJlw1VGwmUHZ6jssulLeR9LmWcEdX QEQnL2ysFrJHGVJB2NZdBUbSn7G461lAvcPYpsItEeYmamU6XZxxPfDXQS4hPFXM o/jqrItHbP1FYiIGMr2LixZ7xL8iht/+mD5/nzxbOmtMcrsm+1yaoufrR7BYChtf sa93KUt4zgx6F43nR9NV54c6x5FIHRu7rtq1mImLenWWEKYXSOLix6AWcFaliBfV brz93ps7EsMTsZB2lqa8ED0tcCY6SUEFe/JWdAubelcEQLDDByLLuaUU7YCAjIit N+B+LNpHkspoISZBAouCdm2T2qJTQuqHkhiTmeH0Dov+ZQpigdXff9H997mzpMfq kEo3CztBa3pWLvr7Ih189K4kKYvtRAD1bqMcse191sXl04zQyPcquU2RGxo5lDb4 6Eq/o8ZYTOXs/3w0WzxJ =5Stz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
