Bug 158493

Summary:	openoffice package dependency bug
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap>
Component:	openoffice.org	Assignee:	Caolan McNamara <caolanm>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	4	CC:	hablack, jbourne
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i686
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2005-05-28 08:24:52 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	136450

Description Jonathan S. Shapiro 2005-05-22 23:51:42 UTC

Since when does openoffice.org depend on libjawt?

Or if for some reason it must, why isn't the correct version of libjawt pushed
into the devel tree?

openoffice.org.i286 1:1.9.104-1

Comment 1 Hal Black 2005-05-24 16:15:37 UTC

I'm guessing this is the same bug that prevents yum from updating openoffice.org:

---> Package openoffice.org-core.i386 1:1.9.104-1 set to be updated

Error: Missing Dependency: libjawt.so.6 is needed by package openoffice.org-core

Comment 2 James Bourne 2005-05-24 18:23:48 UTC

libjawt.so.6.0.0 has been renamed to libgcjawt.so.6.0.0 in libgcj-4.0.0-8.

openoffice.org needs to be relinked.

Comment 3 Jonathan S. Shapiro 2005-05-24 18:53:06 UTC

Ahh. This explains why the update didn't go through even though I actually have
libjawt installed -- the libgcj upgrade (which is trying to happen at the same
time) is planning to whack that.

Comment 4 Jonathan S. Shapiro 2005-05-24 20:47:40 UTC

Wait a minute. Is libjawt new in this release? If not, won't renaming it break
dynamic link dependencies from other applications in addition to OpenOffice?

Comment 5 Jeremy Katz 2005-05-24 21:11:33 UTC

It's new in this release.  OOo got rebuilt this morning and should be in
tomorrow's rawhide.

Comment 6 Jonathan S. Shapiro 2005-05-24 22:58:37 UTC

Cool. And thank you.