Dario Cavallaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:17:21 +0200:
> Hi all. Do I need really eclipse-ecj if I have installed eclipse-sdk? > Here is what I have as depencies: > > emerge --deep --update --ask world > > These are the packages that would be merged, in order: > > Calculating world dependencies - > !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=dev-java/eclipse-ecj-3.1*" have > been masked. > !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your > request: > - dev-java/eclipse-ecj-3.1-r2 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword) > - dev-java/eclipse-ecj-3.1-r13 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword) > (dependency required by "www-servers/tomcat-5.5.17" [ebuild]) The tomcat-5.5 series is brand new to portage. It wasn't even in my tree until I just did a sync, and I think I had synced two days ago. As such, it's possible/likely they got that dependency wrong. I should mention that I won't install slaveryware here, including slaveryware Java, so I know little about anything requiring slaveryware Java. However, I can read dependencies as they exist in the ebuild, and sure enough, that's a specific dependency in the ebuild as "=dev-java/eclipse-ecj-3.1*". I'd consider filing a bug on the ebuild, however it's possible that it /is/ a specific dependency. From what I've read on the developer list, the Java team has been doing a lot of work in a separate overlay as they changed the way a lot of stuff worked previously. They are now adding that to the tree, which is probably the reason we jumped from tomcat 5.0.x to 5.5.x. It's possible that the way it now works, there's a specific dependency on that eclipse version, perhaps because it is the only thing updated to the way they are doing things now or something. Thus, while I'd file a bug anyway just to get it documented if there is such a thing going on (I just checked and see no other bugs on it yet), it's possible they'll close it as invalid or won't-fix or something, if they have a specific reason for that specific dependency. Still, even if that happens, it will then be documented for anyone else wondering the same thing, so it won't have been in vane, and it could very well be a valid bug and they'll change it -- I just don't know but do know they've been reworking things so it's possible the dependency is legit in the new scheme. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [email protected] mailing list
