On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 05:07:54PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 11.01.2011 12:28, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >>Package: libgcj10 >>Version: 4.4.5-9 >>Severity: normal
>> Please provide a virtual package that encodes the version of the ABI >> for .jar.so files. This would allow packages that ship such files to >> depend against the "right" version of gcj/gij/... >> See for example bug #609657 for a package that would greatly >> benefit from this. > the package is there and it is called libgcj-bc. Ah, I see. It seems I have misunderstood / read to fast what the LibreOffice maintainer told me in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609657#10 . It seems the information he is missing to properly set dependencies for libreoffice-gcj (and its predecessor openoffice.org-gcj) is which version of gcj-jre/java-gcj-compat is the right one. libreoffice-gcj already depends on "libgcj-bc (>= 4.4.5-1~)", which indeed comes correctly and automatically from the .shlibs. But then it depends on (any version of) java-gcj-compat, and this allows the situation that: - libgcj-bc is indeed at the right version (from gcc 4.4.5, libgcj10) - the version of _lenny_ of java-gcj-compat is installed (from gcc 4.3.2, libgcj9) In that situation, LibreOffice at runtime uses the Lenny gcj/gij/..., which does not work with the .jar.so file in libreoffice-gcj (because compiled with gcj 4.4.5). To avoid that situation, libreoffice-gcj needs a dependency on "a version of libgcj-jre that wraps around/symlinks a version of libgcjN, for a good value of N, that works with .jar.so files generated by the gcj used at compile-time". If I understood well, this would be a versioned dependency on libgcj-jre (probably ">= 4.4.5-1~"), or maybe a dependency on gcj-4.4-jre. But the information of the "-4.4-" or the ">= 4.4.5-1~" has to come from src:gcc somehow (I guess with the same versioning as in the .shlibs file). Maybe a dpkg subst variable, maybe through a dependency-only package, or a virtual package. Rene, could you please confirm that my understanding, and the above explanation is now correct, or else explain what the problem is? Thanks in advance. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110111185137.ga22...@capsaicin.mamane.lu
