Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Depencies that I do not understand
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:39:43
Message-Id: e8dgci$222$
In Reply to: [gentoo-amd64] Depencies that I do not understand by Dario Cavallaro
1 Dario Cavallaro <subbia@×××××.com> posted 44A918E1.9040309@×××××.com,
2 excerpted below, on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:17:21 +0200:
4 > Hi all. Do I need really eclipse-ecj if I have installed eclipse-sdk?
5 > Here is what I have as depencies:
6 >
7 > emerge --deep --update --ask world
8 >
9 > These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
10 >
11 > Calculating world dependencies -
12 > !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=dev-java/eclipse-ecj-3.1*" have
13 > been masked.
14 > !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
15 > request:
16 > - dev-java/eclipse-ecj-3.1-r2 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)
17 > - dev-java/eclipse-ecj-3.1-r13 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)
19 > (dependency required by "www-servers/tomcat-5.5.17" [ebuild])
21 The tomcat-5.5 series is brand new to portage. It wasn't even in my tree
22 until I just did a sync, and I think I had synced two days ago. As such,
23 it's possible/likely they got that dependency wrong.
25 I should mention that I won't install slaveryware here, including
26 slaveryware Java, so I know little about anything requiring slaveryware
27 Java. However, I can read dependencies as they exist in the ebuild, and
28 sure enough, that's a specific dependency in the ebuild as
29 "=dev-java/eclipse-ecj-3.1*".
31 I'd consider filing a bug on the ebuild, however it's possible that it
32 /is/ a specific dependency. From what I've read on the developer list, the
33 Java team has been doing a lot of work in a separate overlay as they
34 changed the way a lot of stuff worked previously. They are now adding
35 that to the tree, which is probably the reason we jumped from tomcat 5.0.x
36 to 5.5.x. It's possible that the way it now works, there's a specific
37 dependency on that eclipse version, perhaps because it is the only thing
38 updated to the way they are doing things now or something. Thus, while
39 I'd file a bug anyway just to get it documented if there is such a thing
40 going on (I just checked and see no other bugs on it yet), it's possible
41 they'll close it as invalid or won't-fix or something, if they have a
42 specific reason for that specific dependency. Still, even if that
43 happens, it will then be documented for anyone else wondering the same
44 thing, so it won't have been in vane, and it could very well be a valid
45 bug and they'll change it -- I just don't know but do know they've been
46 reworking things so it's possible the dependency is legit in the new
47 scheme.
49 --
50 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
51 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
52 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
54 --
55 gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list