Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-bugs (5757 mails)

[bugzilla_noreply@xxxxxxxxxx]

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=622429

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=622429#c4


Michal Vyskocil <mvyskocil@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |NEEDINFO
       InfoProvider|                            |draht@xxxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #4 from Michal Vyskocil <mvyskocil@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-05 15:10:35 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> tomcat6 should probably requires libapr-devel instead of moving.

Tomcat does not Require libapr1. It should recommend it ...

> (or the bug that it looks for .so links should be fixed, and the
> .so.majorversion should be used)

No, that cannot be done. Java call System.loadLibrary($NAME) is translated into
$LIBDIR/lib$NAME.so. And because libapr is loaded by tomcat in runtime by
System.loadLibrary($NAME), which is the equivalent of dlopen it is more a
plugin than shared library from tomcat's POW.

We have few solutions:

1.) Add the libapr-1.so to libapr1 package - not useful for nontomcat/no java
users
2.) Let tomcat6 Require/Recommend/Suggets libapr-devel - not useful for tomcat
users without apache
3.) Add Supplements: packageand(apache:tomcat6) into libapr-devel

> From my POW the best opinion here number 3, because libapr-devel will be
installed on system with tomcat6 and apache, which seems like most reasonable
situation.

* For the forward compatibility (tomcat7 is in beta phase) I'll change our
tomcat packages to provide generic tomcat symbol, so this will work in a future
too.

Roman: you're the bugowner of Apache project - what's your opinion?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.