On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:03:36PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> (sid)root@frodo:/# grep-available -FDepends libhsqldb -sPackage | awk '{ 
> print $2 }' | grep -v ".*hsqldb"
> libbiojava1.7-java
> entagged
> libreoffice-base
> libopenjpa-java
> pixelmed-java
> biomaj
> paros
> are the packages in sid right now which depend on libhsqldb-java.
> I kept libhsqldb-java 1.8.0.x in unstable (and 1.8.1.x only in experimental)
> because openoffice.org (and now libreoffice) need 1.8.0.x for it's file format
> compatibility ([1])
> Now this seems to be fixed in 1.8.1.x:
> (quote from #libreoffice-dev/freenode, 2012-02-10):
> 10:46 <@caolan> _rene_: hsqldb guy (fred) tells me that the hsqldb 1.8.1 
> series file format is the same as the 1.8.0 file format, except for one 
> feature we don't use, so that in theory we can upgrade to 1.8.1, change bits 
> in org.hsqldb.persist.HsqlDatabaseProperties to write 1.8.0 and .odb written 
> with 1.8.1 will open
> fine in 1.8.0
> [...]
> 10:48 <@caolan> _rene_: I asked fred to send all the details of the 1.8.X and 
> 2.X.X hsqldb stuff to the list
> [...]
> 10:51 <@_rene_> caolan: yeah, that "I write 1.8.1 in the document format" 
> thing is why noone upgraded it yet.. (except gentoo who then reverted it as 
> it broke..)
> 10:52 <@_rene_> caolan: but yeah, good thing
> 10:53 < CIA-63> LibreOffice (core) smvarela * (3 files in 3 dirs): Remove 
> unused code.
> 10:53 <@caolan> _rene_: fred suggested he might do a maintenance 1.8.X 
> release. It wasn't quite clear if that release would auto-configure to 
> claiming its output format was 1.8.0 out of the box, making the problem just 
> go away, or if it would need to be tweaked, which wouldn't massively help the 
> distros
> 10:54 <@caolan> though maybe he could add an api to set the output format 
> from using-code, which might resolve it properly
> [...]
> 14:20 <@caolan> _rene_: yeah, fred from hsqldb with release a hsqldb 
> with some sort of hook that can be used to tell it to write 1.8.0 compatible 
> databases

This didn't happen (yet), though I'd like to upload 2.2 anyway, remove
2.0 and do the transition...

> so I'd like to upload that to unstable (and adapt libreoffice) if it happens.
> But this problem makes me ask
> Q1) does anyone of your programs using libhsqldb-java have the same problem? 
> Do we need to wait for them to be patches
>     to upload 1.8.1.x?
> As you probably noticed, libhsqldb-java is 1.8.x while we have a
> libhsqldb2.0-java in experimental (and there's a 2.2.8 released, which I
> packaged some days ago and is ready to upload here now that I long neglected
> because I didn't care as OOo and LibO *do* need 1.8.x.)
> Q2) Would you agree that renaming libhsqldb-java to libhsqldb1.8-java would be
>     worthwile? We then can upload 2.2.8 as libhsqldb-java. This needs source
>     uploads of all the above packages, though.
> Q3) Does anyone want to overtake libhsqldb-java (2.x) then? I am only
>     interested in 1.8.x for OOo/LO.
> Q4) does anyone need 2.0 *and* 2.2 be different? Anything working with 2.0
>     and not 2.2? (Doubt that, but better safe than sorry) - in that case we
>     need to have libhsqldb1.8-java, libhsqldb2.0-java and the "new"
>     libhsqldb-java)

And noone except tillea (for debian-med)[1] answered here. pkg-java,


[1] not affected by the file format issue, otherwise no problem (Andreas,
correct me if I understood wrong)

This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Reply via email to