Re: Problem with apache-commons-logging dependency on servlet_2_5_api

On 01/07/2012 05:45 PM, Ralph Apel wrote:
> 1) jetty6-servlet-2.5-api should not Require anything else 
> Surprise! Surprise!
> Current jetty6 packages are 6.1.26-1.jpp6 but jetty6-servlet-2.5-api is
> 6.1.14-1.jpp5. This means that jetty6-servlet-2.5-api has been
> discontinued and the current packages do (B)R servlet_2_5_api. Users
> should exclude jetty6* on JPP5-free.

The proper fix seems to be to add an Obsoletes in the new jetty6
packages. A Provides does not make sense here, but a Requires on
servlet-api will take care of that.

> 2a) tomcat6-servlet-2.5-api should Provide servlet_2_5_api and not
> Require anything else. 
> It already contained the servlet_2_5_api and jsp_2_1_api symlinks but
> didn't declare to provide them.

Indeed, it makes sense for tomcat to require its own servlet subpackage
explicitly rather than any generic implementation.

> 2b) geronimo-specs packages should only Require what they really do,
> e.g. jsp_2_1_api should Require servlet_2_5_api 
> Individual subpackages Required the main package because the latter used
> to hold the poms. Later the poms were moved to the individual specs and
> the main package told to Require them all. There now is no need for the
> individual specs to Require the main package.

If the parent pom has module lines, does that mean the parent pom
requires them? I agree that we should still not require anything here,
but I am wondering what maven's behavior would be like.

> 3a) I do agree in that apache-commons-logging might not Require any servlet_api 
> 3b) I do agree in that apache-commons-logging might Require something like servlet_api >= 2.3 
> OK, opting for drop of Requires

Generally, our policy is to drop any dependency with the optional
modifier. RPM does not have a way of specifying optional dependencies,
and generally people do not like when require things beyond the minimum.
So, I agree with dropping the Requires.