Proposed updates to antlr build-deps

Barry Hawkins barry at bytemason.org
Fri Aug 5 02:56:30 UTC 2005


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wolfgang Baer wrote:
[...]
> Barry Hawkins wrote:
> 
>>Team,
>>    I am looking into updating the antlr source package after a
>>conversation with Petter Reinholdtsen on IRC.  There are currently the
>>following two build dependencies:
>>
>>gcj-3.4
>>libgcj5-dev
[...]
It has become clear to me that I have miscommunicated the question I was
trying to ask with this proposed update, so I will now attempt to be
clearer in my explanation.  Observe the following table based on info
from the source package's developer information page(s):

**********************************************************
* Release   * Default GCJ Ver. * Default libgcjN-dev Ver.*
**********************************************************
* testing   *    gcj-3.3[0]    *    libgcj4-dev          *
**********************************************************
* unstable  *    gcj-4.0[2]    *    libgcj6-dev          *
**********************************************************

Since gcj-4.0 is the default in unstable and gcj-3.3 is the default in
testing for gcj at this time[0], and gcj-3.4 was last used, what I am
trying to ask is, which gcj do we want to specify in the Build-Deps for
antlr?  It would seem that choosing something instead of gcj-3.4 would
make sense, since it seems like it will never be the default gcj in
testing or unstable at this point.  So, it would seem the choices are:

a.) gcj (implicit assignment; depends on release in question)
b.) gcj-3.3 (explicit assignment)
c.) gcj-4.0 (explicit assignment)

Similar logic and choice applies to libgcj-dev.

> If the compile-to-native feature is needed I would start using
> directly the java-gcj-compat-dev package (see patch from ubuntu
> for example http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/antlr/)
> 
> This would also reduce divergences.
[...]
Probably a good idea; I am ambivalent about it at the moment.

> I only found a changelog entry from gcc-3.0
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=101570
> 
> But I think a short questions to the GCC Maintainers would
> be good. This also affects the java-gcj-compat package which
> is not available on mips/mipsel.
[...]
After further research and studying the gcc-3.3 source package both in
testing and unstable, I have filed Bug Report #321534[2]

[0] -
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=gcc-3.3&searchon=sourcenames&version=all&release=all
[1] -
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=gcc-4.0&searchon=sourcenames&version=all&release=all
[2] - http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=321534

Thanks,
- --
Barry Hawkins
All Things Computed
site: www.alltc.com
weblog: www.yepthatsme.com

Registered Linux User #368650


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC8tVeHuKcDICy0QoRAvttAJ0UrWhXu/my0385q3jyvwF9IRIbqgCg8uz0
thd1Z4JAYDGyGJRU1x3wIwo=
=D+l9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the pkg-java-maintainers mailing list