If I understand the dep-chain correctly:
libreoffice-writer -> libreoffice-core -> jre ->
java-1.7.0-openjdk-headless -> apache-commons-logging -> log4j
This means I get an ugly icon called "Chainsaw" in the GNOME Software
center that when I try to remove also removes all the LibreOffice
packages
- Original Message -
> From: "Richard Hughes"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:32:57 PM
> Subject: Another questionable dependency chain -- libreoffice-writer installs
> log4j-chainsaw
>
On 30 January 2014 11:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> Clarification the actual chain is
>
> java-headless->rhino->jline->jansi->hawtjni->xbean->avalon-framework->log4j
Ahh, thanks for working that one out. Java isn't my area of expertise.
> It's time to prune such things out of the distro
- Original Message -
> From: "Richard Hughes"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:28:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Another questionable dependency chain -- libreoffice-writer
> installs log4j-
Required By
apache-commons-logging
avalon-logkit
fop
hadoop-common
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
- Original Message -
> From: "Richard Hughes"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:28:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Another questionable dependency chain -- libreoffice-writer
> installs log4j-
Aleksandar Kurtakov writes:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Richard Hughes"
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:28:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: Another questionable dependency chain
On 01/30/2014 12:28 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 30 January 2014 11:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>> Clarification the actual chain is
>>
>> java-headless->rhino->jline->jansi->hawtjni->xbean->avalon-framework->log4j
>
> Ahh, thanks for working that one out. Java isn't my area of experti
On 30 January 2014 12:48, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> Some
> dependencies may be required only in some contexts, for example only for
> testing, or only when using that package to compile other packages.
I think not-installed-by-default subpackages are the solution here.
Richard
--
devel mailing
On 01/30/2014 01:56 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 30 January 2014 12:48, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>> Some
>> dependencies may be required only in some contexts, for example only for
>> testing, or only when using that package to compile other packages.
>
> I think not-installed-by-default subpack
Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> 2) RPM doesn't differentiate between dependency scopes. Some
> dependencies may be required only in some contexts, for example only for
> testing, or only when using that package to compile other packages. In
> the latter case one would normally put these dependencies in
Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> That would certainly help from theoretical point of view, but that's not
> really maintainable. Adding hundreds of empty packages just to improve
> dependencies isn't the right way to go, IMHO. This should be fixed in
> the infrastructure.
IMHO, adding hundreds of empty
Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> 2) RPM doesn't differentiate between dependency scopes. Some
> dependencies may be required only in some contexts, for example only for
> testing, or only when using that package to compile other packages. In
> the latter case one would normally put these dependencies i
13 matches
Mail list logo
