Hi Emmanuel, On Mon, 10 May 2021 12:41:36 +0200 Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > Le 2021-05-10 11:23, Pierre Gruet a écrit : > > > Version 1.7.30-1 of libslf4j does not declare liblog4j1.2-java as a > > dependency, > > it is only declared within the "Suggests:" field in debian/control. > > > > Yet the classes of liblog4j1.2-java are needed by many classes in > > slf4j-migrator.jar, slf4j-log4j12.jar, log4j-over-slf4j.jar. > > log4j:log4j is > > also a declared dependency with scope runtime in slf4j-log4j12/pom.xml. > > For this reason, other projects depending on the artifact slf4j-log4j12 > > fail to > > resolve log4j:log4j:1.2.x. > > The dependency on log4j is only suggested because it's optional. The > right > solution I think it to move slf4j-log4j12 into its own > libslf4j-log4j12-java > package with a hard dependency on liblog4j1.2-java.
I have just given it a try, it is quite easy to create a second binary package libslf4j-log4j12-java that depends on libslf4j-java and on liblog4j1.2-java, yet I tried to use ratt and it attempts to rebuild more than 850 packages.
I am unsure the binary package split is worth running this number of builds and then touching all the reverse-dependencies that need it. Does keeping one binary package libslf4j-java and having it depend on liblog4j1.2-java (instead of just suggesting it) really seem unreasonable to you? After all, the log4j-1.2.jar file is really needed in the classpath when using the artifact slf4j-log4j12.
> > Emmanuel Bourg > > Thanks again for your advice on this, -- Pierre
