| Summary: | dev-java/antlr-2.7.7-r2 AND kde-base/kdesdk-misc-4.4.5 both want to install /usr/lib64/libantlr.so | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Thomas Raschbacher <lordvan> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gentoo KDE team <kde> |
| Status: | RESOLVED OBSOLETE | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | bughunter, java |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
patch for the source renaming the antlr library
updated ebuild |
||
|
Description
Thomas Raschbacher
2011-04-12 13:51:05 UTC
KDE should be using and depending on the system copy. I do agree with that ;) makes no sense for kde to install antlr.so files Created attachment 270155 [details, diff]
patch for the source renaming the antlr library
Created attachment 270157 [details]
updated ebuild
Dunno, if the ebuild complies with current Gentoo standards, but it works. Please recheck!
Just added a patch and an updated ebuild for the issue. It basically renames KDE's libantlr to libkanlr. Tested and working in x86, but should work on other platforms, too. Anyway, I think, this should be fixed upstream... Best regards Jan Just another thought: KDE's version is *not* identical to the library antlr installs. I figured out that point, when dev-lang/gdl wanted to link against KDE's version instead of the original one, so just removing KDE's file is not a solution (There is at least a comment, if not a report, from me in the gdl bugtree; I can't remember the details at the moment.) Just for completeness, there the gdl issue is: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=286630 This can probably be resolved, see https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=230722 (In reply to comment #8) > This can probably be resolved, see > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=230722 I don't see why this was marked obsolete? Did you mean to mark it upstream? (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > This can probably be resolved, see > > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=230722 > > I don't see why this was marked obsolete? Did you mean to mark it upstream? Because no affected versions are in the tree anymore? |