Bug 473984
| Summary: | Installation of eclipse-jdt.ppc gives missing dependency error on Fedora 10-ppc | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | IBM Bug Proxy <bugproxy> |
| Component: | pungi | Assignee: | David Cantrell <dcantrell> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 10 | CC: | akurtako, dbhole, dcantrell, overholt |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | ppc64 | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-12-18 07:05:21 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
IBM Bug Proxy
2008-12-01 18:00:52 UTC
This probably means java-gcj-compat doesn't provide java-javadoc. Or that eclipse should have a different dependency. Deepak? Hi Red Hat, I have mirrored this bug against "eclipse" component but please feel free to choose a proper one. Thanks for your support. Redhat, Any updates on this bug? Thanks Pavan I'm confused as to why this is happening. According to this: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=904507 java-1.5.0-gcj-javadoc Provides java-javadoc. OpenJDK provides the same virtual package. $ rpm -q --whatprovides java-javadoc java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.6.0.0-7.b12.fc10 java-1.5.0-gcj-javadoc-1.5.0.0-23.fc10 Is this still an issue? I can't duplicate on my ppc F-10 box here. I tried both yum install eclipse-jdt and yum install eclipse-jdt.ppc and both worked. (In reply to comment #11) > I'm confused as to why this is happening. According to this: > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=904507 > > java-1.5.0-gcj-javadoc Provides java-javadoc. OpenJDK provides the same > virtual package. > > $ rpm -q --whatprovides java-javadoc > java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.6.0.0-7.b12.fc10 > java-1.5.0-gcj-javadoc-1.5.0.0-23.fc10 I could not see these packages installed in my system. These packages are not shiped in DVD iso. If I choose to install the eclipse during the installation it succeeds, but through "yum install eclipse-jdt.ppc" it gives dependency error for javadoc package. So perhaps the issue is that something isn't on the DVD when it should be? (In reply to comment #13) > So perhaps the issue is that something isn't on the DVD when it should be? > Yes. In DVD installation installer installs the eclipse-jdt package without checking the dependency. Is javadoc a dependent package for eclipse-jdt? (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #13) > > So perhaps the issue is that something isn't on the DVD when it should be? > > > > Yes. In DVD installation installer installs the eclipse-jdt package without > checking the dependency. So that means the DVD needs to include java-1.5.0-gcj-javadoc, IMO. At least on ppc. Please file a bug against ... hmm, pungi? I really don't know :) > Is javadoc a dependent package for eclipse-jdt? Yes. The JDT's javadocs are linked against the JDK's javadocs at build time. It's also good practice to have the JDK's javadocs around when developing java code, IMO, as the JDT provides hover help and completion for them. ------- Comment From emachado.ibm.com 2009-03-27 11:07 EDT------- Hello Red Hat, any news regarding this issue? Please let us know if you need any help. Thanks for your support. Taking a stab at a component ... sorry if it's incorrect. I think I've fixed this upstream, we now do a package deselect from the things marked with - in the kickstart config, rather than a yum level exclude. This means that things with - may still get gathered if they are needed for deps, or for srpms. That means that the various javadoc stuff that would be needed will be available on the media. ------- Comment From emachado.ibm.com 2009-07-27 11:03 EDT------- Hello Red Hat, closing as fixed on Fedora 11 Final. Thanks for your support. This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |