From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25087 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2014 16:28:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25065 invoked by uid 89); 24 Nov 2014 16:28:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:28:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAOGScjv026149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:28:39 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.38] (ovpn-113-38.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.38]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAOGScem015916; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:28:38 -0500 Message-ID: <54735CB3.8020104@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:28:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerald Pfeifer , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, java@gcc.gnu.org, David Malcolm Subject: Re: GCC 5 fallout: libdata/pkgconfig/libgcj-5.0.pc References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 On 11/24/14 09:00, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Saturday 2014-08-23 12:38, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> Packaging last week's GCC 5 snapshot, I ran into a couple of issues >> due to the version number change. >> >> One is this: We are still creating libdata/pkgconfig/libgcj-5.0.pc >> as we used to create libgcj-4.10.pc. >> >> Shouldn't that be libgcj-5.pc now? > > Ping. > > If it was 4.10 before, should it really not be just 5 now? Yes. I wasn't even aware that we had a libgcj-.pc I guess I ought to eliminate my objection to bringing in pkg-config dependencies into the JIT with that new knowledge. Though in the case of libgcj we just install the file and don't, as far as I can tell, actually depend on pkg-config. jeff