Bug 722247 - Unnecessary dependency on java-1.5.0-gcj ?
Summary: Unnecessary dependency on java-1.5.0-gcj ?
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: postgresql-jdbc
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom Lane
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-07-14 18:06 UTC by Hans de Goede
Modified: 2013-07-03 03:37 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: postgresql-jdbc-9.0.801-3.fc16
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-07-17 20:57:26 UTC
Type: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Hans de Goede 2011-07-14 18:06:30 UTC
Hi,

Because Fedora has been using openjdk instead of gcj for quite a while now, I thought it would be good to completely remove gcj from my system to clean up some diskspace. However I failed to remove completely remove gcj, because postgresql-jdbc still requires java-1.5.0-gcj (and openoffice-base requires postgresql-jdbc).

So I wonder if the dependency on java-1.5.0-gcj really necessary? And if not can it be dropped please?

Thanks & Regards,

Hans

Comment 1 Tom Lane 2011-07-14 19:01:36 UTC
Yeah, the specfile is still defaulting to a gcj build, but that's a legacy choice for sure.  However, the non-gcj build path hasn't been tested in a *long* time.  Would you be willing to try a build with _gcj_support set to 0, and see if it (a) works and (b) has the dependencies you expect?  I'm not in a very good position to test this myself.

Comment 2 Hans de Goede 2011-07-14 21:44:14 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Yeah, the specfile is still defaulting to a gcj build, but that's a legacy
> choice for sure.  However, the non-gcj build path hasn't been tested in a
> *long* time.  Would you be willing to try a build with _gcj_support set to 0,
> and see if it (a) works

Works as in builds, or works as in actually use the postgresql-jdbc binding?
I can do the build checking, but I don't see myself actually testing the database functionality...

Regards,

Hans


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