Hello Matthias,
Le vendredi 25 avril 2008 à 18:36 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> gij/gcj and java-gcj-compat are not available (anymore) on the following
> architectures: alpha, arm, hppa and hurd-i386.
>
> This package has been identified as a package which build-depends on
> gcj or java-gcj-compat-dev and builds at least one architecture
> dependent package, and is unbuildable in unstable. If this report is a
> false positive, please close it.
>
> All gcj related build dependencies have to restricted to these
> architectures on which a java or java compatible development kit /
> compiler is available, i.e.
>
> java-gcj-compat [!alpha !arm !hppa !hurd-i386]
>
> As a second step please consider changing the java-gcj-compat-dev b-d
> to default-jdk-builddep, making the package independent of a specific
> implementation and depend on the jdk, which is most suitable for this
> architecture. default-jdk-builddep will depend in addition on
> java-gcj-compat-dev, even if the default jdk is another one (to allow
> to compile byte-code to native code using dh_nativejava).
I am not sure I see what the proper fix is for this bug:
* changing the build-dependencies from:
gcj, java-gcj-compat-dev
to:
gcj [!alpha !arm !hppa !hurd-i386], java-gcj-compat-dev [!alpha !arm
!hppa !hurd-i386]
will prevent installing a non-existent build-dep on these arches at
compile time.
* source packages that produce -gcj, -jni (or even -cni) binary
packages - that is arch-dep packages - should no longer be autobuilt
on the alpha, arm, hppa, hurd-i386 arches. But how? Is it enough to
change all Architecture: any packages to Architecture: i38 amd64 ...,
i.e. everything but the unsupported arches? (Unfortunately we can't
use the negated notation here AFAIK.)
* the Architecture: all packages usually depend on:
java-gcj-compat | java2-runtime
so this again should be changed to:
java-gcj-compat [!alpha !arm !hppa !hurd-i386] | java2-runtime
* changing java-gcj-compat to default-jdk and java-gcj-compat-dev to
default-jdk-dev does not change anything with respect to the arches
issue: for now there's no such packages on the gcj-unsupported
arches.
Will this change? If the answer is no, this means the same notations
have to be used with the new package.
Regards,
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
