Bug 183849 - www-servers/tomcat-5.5-r6 doesn't DEPEND on ant-trax
|
Bug#:
183849
|
Product: Gentoo Linux
|
Version: unspecified
|
Platform: All
|
|
OS/Version: Linux
|
Status: RESOLVED
|
Severity: normal
|
Priority: P2
|
|
Resolution: FIXED
|
Assigned To: wltjr@gentoo.org
|
Reported By: betelgeuse@gentoo.org
|
|
Component: Server
|
|
|
URL:
|
|
Summary: www-servers/tomcat-5.5-r6 doesn't DEPEND on ant-trax
|
|
Keywords:
|
|
Status Whiteboard:
|
|
Opened: 2007-07-01 16:00 0000
|
mirja@tinkkis ~ $ grep ant-trax
/var/cache/edb/dep/usr/portage/www-servers/tomcat-5.5.23-r6
mirja@tinkkis ~ $
mirja@tinkkis /usr/portage/www-servers/tomcat $ grep ant-trax *
tomcat-5.5.23-r1.ebuild:#WANT_ANT_TASKS="ant-trax"
tomcat-5.5.23-r1.ebuild: || ( dev-java/ant-trax dev-java/ant-tasks ) "
tomcat-5.5.23-r1.ebuild: ANT_TASKS="ant-trax" eant ${antflags}
tomcat-5.5.23-r6.ebuild:#WANT_ANT_TASKS="ant-trax"
tomcat-5.5.23-r6.ebuild: ANT_TASKS="ant-trax" eant ${antflags}
tomcat-6.0.13-r3.ebuild:WANT_ANT_TASKS="ant-trax"
the DEPEND || atom was dropped at some point but while doing that the
WANT_ANT_TASKS for ant-trax was not uncommented.
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> the DEPEND || atom was dropped at some point but while doing that the
> WANT_ANT_TASKS for ant-trax was not uncommented.
Yeah I was going to switch back to using the automatic stuff provided by the
new split ant. However there was some class path pollution problems of the
past. Not sure if they still remain. So wasn't really able to switch to the new
stuff, and left the ebuild in limbo between the two ;)
Fixed ebuild and committed to tree. Thanks for reporting.
Aw, going back to || () deps when split-ant is stable? Please no, we want to
get rid of ant-tasks one day...
btw 6.0 is also done the way I proposed, and it's right
Well 6.0.x does not have admin webapp. Which is the problem 5.5.x had that
caused the custom ANT_TASKS stuff to be introduced in the first place. Although
I had already started going the direction of uncommenting WANT_ANT_TASKS and
removing all the stuff it adds automatically. Just committed that, so we
should be good to go now. Would have committed sooner, but was bogged down in
conversation :( While the bug got reopened.
Oh well. Interesting how it was missed in the last 5 revisions :)