| 1 |
Dario Cavallaro <subbia@×××××.com> posted 44A918E1.9040309@×××××.com, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:17:21 +0200: |
| 3 |
|
| 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) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> (dependency required by "www-servers/tomcat-5.5.17" [ebuild]) |
| 20 |
|
| 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. |
| 24 |
|
| 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*". |
| 30 |
|
| 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. |
| 48 |
|
| 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 |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives