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