Bug 160716 - missing jar -> fastjar symlink
missing jar -> fastjar symlink
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
Classification: Red Hat
Component: java-1.4.2-gcj-compat (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Thomas Fitzsimmons
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-06-16 16:24 EDT by Andreas Thienemann
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:07 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-10-09 18:17:54 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Andreas Thienemann 2005-06-16 16:24:29 EDT
During a test rebuild of ecj-ecj-2.1.3-5 in the mock builder, the following
problem manifests itself:

+ find -name '*.class' -or -name '*.properties' -or -name '*.rsc'
+ xargs jar cf ../../../ecj-2.1.3.jar
xargs: jar: No such file or directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.45084 (%build)

The reason is, that the Required libgcj installs fastjar, but doesn't set up the
correct symlink with the alternatives system.
This is done by the java-$ver-compat package, which is not being installed.

According to nasrat the best way of dealing with this issue is dropping the
BuildRequires for gcc-java and libgcj and just setting a BuildRequire for
java-$ver-compat, or even better the virtual java-devel package which is
provided by the java-compat package. This will fix the alternatives problem and
pull in gcj and libgcj as well.

This bug is at least present in RHEL4, RHEL3, FC4, FC3 and current RawHide. Bugs
were filed for these releases as well.
Comment 1 Andreas Thienemann 2005-06-16 16:25:27 EDT
sorry, RHEL3 is not affected. copy-n-waste mistake
Comment 2 RHEL Product and Program Management 2006-10-09 18:09:34 EDT
The component this request has been filed against is not planned for inclusion
in the next update. The decision is based on weighting the priority and number
of requests for a component as well as the impact on the Red Hat Enterprise
Linux user-base: other components are considered having higher priority and the
number of changes we intend to include in update cycles is limited.
Comment 3 RHEL Product and Program Management 2006-10-09 18:17:54 EDT
Product Management has reviewed and declined this request.  You may appeal this
decision by reopening this request. 

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.