* Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx> [2012-08-29 05:21]:
> We've encountered some minor issues with a few package which were kind
> of hard to track down. They were partially caused by a bug in yum which
> causes both gcj and openjdk being pulled in when only one of them should
> be. The other part was small and hard to spot packaging issues which
> caused gcj getting accidentaly pulled into BR instead openjdk
>
> Now there are legitimate reasons to require gcj directly, but I'd like
> to propose removing "Provides: java = %{javaver}" (and -devel
> counterpart). I think leaving rest of the provides should not be an
> issue.
>
> This way we'll be able to remove obscure need for "Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0"
>
> I am CCing Deepak as primary maintainer. Does anyone have strong
> objections for said removal?
>
The biggest problem would be for Java packages that need to build on non
primary architectures. GCJ builds on every architecture we have, but
that is not the case for OpenJDK (yet). If we remove the provides, any
packages that may have been using GCJ will no longer be able to build.
Of course GCJ is only Java 1.5 so I don't think it helps too many
applications. If the architectural concerns are okay to ignore, then I
too am fine with removing the provides. We can always add it back at a
later time if need be.
Cheers,
Deepak
> --
> Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
>
> PGP: 7B087241
> Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
> --
> java-devel mailing list
> java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
