Bug 230528

Summary:	openoffice.org depends on "java development", i.e. xerces-j2, xalan-j2
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Karl Lattimer <karl>
Component:	comps	Assignee:	David Cantrell <dcantrell>
Status:	CLOSED DEFERRED	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6	CC:	caolanm
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-03-01 15:19:28 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:

Description Karl Lattimer 2007-03-01 09:15:26 UTC

Description of problem:
If you remove java development from the groups view it also uninstalls open office. 

How reproducible:
Last 3 times I tried it

Steps to Reproduce:
1. uncheck java development under development in groups view
2. click apply
  
Actual results:
Open office is uninstalled

Expected results:
Java development to be uninstalled and not to remove open office as a dependency

Additional info:
The packages within java development that open office depends on should be moved
to somewhere else within the groups view, possibly java runtime?

Comment 1 Caolan McNamara 2007-03-01 09:52:51 UTC

Requires: libgcj >= 4.0.0, bsh, hsqldb >= 1.80.1, xalan-j2, xerces-j2

and on autorequires we additionally need libjawt.so
rpm -q --whatprovides libjawt.so
libgcj

These are all correct requires. Looks like the problem is that xalan-j2 and
xerces-j2 and their dependancies are considered java development. OOo won't work
completely (xslt transform features) if they are removed. Similarly bsh is used
in the scripting environment to go alongside the basic editor to provide a
beanshell scripting UI so there's no bug here on the OOo side.

Comment 2 Jesse Keating 2007-03-01 15:19:28 UTC

The problem is that much of java is both runtime _and_ development.  The java
guys want these things listed in java development also.

I'll ask them to re-review the java groupings within comps, but this may be an
unavoidable situation.