From overholt at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:41:04 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:41:04 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? Message-ID: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> Hi, From my perspective, a large percentage of our libgcj issues are xml-related. Is there any way we could put xerces and/or xalan (or whatever) in the endorsed dir and make those our default for F7? Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tromey at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:50:57 2007 From: tromey at redhat.com (Tom Tromey) Date: 05 Feb 2007 13:50:57 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Overholt writes: Andrew> From my perspective, a large percentage of our libgcj issues are Andrew> xml-related. Is there any way we could put xerces and/or xalan (or Andrew> whatever) in the endorsed dir and make those our default for F7? For onlookers... today Andrew tried this for Eclipse and we ran into: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27710 So one way or another someone is going to have to hack on the Classpath XML bits for this release :( Tom From mark at klomp.org Tue Feb 6 09:14:52 2007 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:14:52 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 16:41 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > From my perspective, a large percentage of our libgcj issues are > xml-related. Is there any way we could put xerces and/or xalan (or > whatever) in the endorsed dir and make those our default for F7? Which bug report are still pending? I have CCed Chris who might know more about the state of any bugs. We do have some conformance tests on builder which seem to indicate that the GNU XML libraries are in parts more standards compliant (although I guess that doesn't help if your application isn't using xml in a compliant way). http://builder.classpath.org/xml/ These tests aren't automatically run, but we could enable them in the daily builds. And a slight problem with the alternative libraries is that at least for GPl applications xerces and/or xalan come under an incompatible license (GPLv3 will be compatible, but no applications use that yet). But we can try to make only non-GPL works based on these libraries use them I guess. Cheers, Mark From aph at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 09:56:20 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:56:20 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <17864.20676.79024.859356@zebedee.pink> Mark Wielaard writes: > On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 16:41 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > > From my perspective, a large percentage of our libgcj issues are > > xml-related. Is there any way we could put xerces and/or xalan (or > > whatever) in the endorsed dir and make those our default for F7? > > Which bug report are still pending? I have CCed Chris who might know > more about the state of any bugs. We do have some conformance tests on > builder which seem to indicate that the GNU XML libraries are in parts > more standards compliant (although I guess that doesn't help if your > application isn't using xml in a compliant way). > http://builder.classpath.org/xml/ These tests aren't automatically run, > but we could enable them in the daily builds. > > And a slight problem with the alternative libraries is that at least for > GPl applications xerces and/or xalan come under an incompatible license > (GPLv3 will be compatible, but no applications use that yet). But we can > try to make only non-GPL works based on these libraries use them I > guess. I think we ought to do some testing and decide what do do based on that. Andrew, if you can detect some hosage that is fixed by xerces and/or xalan, let us have the testcases. Andrew. From overholt at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:29:53 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:29:53 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <073D284B-6AA4-4957-8EB5-4B3CEBCE9FCF@bluezoo.org> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <073D284B-6AA4-4957-8EB5-4B3CEBCE9FCF@bluezoo.org> Message-ID: <20070206142953.GA3317@redhat.com> * Chris Burdess [2007-02-06 09:34]: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi? > query_format=specific&order=relevance > +desc&bug_status=__open__&product=&content=xml I'll see if I can narrow down the issues I've seen to some bug reports. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From overholt at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:37:23 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:37:23 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <20070206143722.GB3317@redhat.com> * Mark Wielaard [2007-02-06 04:15]: > more standards compliant (although I guess that doesn't help if your > application isn't using xml in a compliant way). Yeah, I also find it very hard to track down bugs that are deep within Eclipse or in wacky ant scripts + custom ant tasks. Also, the lack of debugging still sucks (yes, I know it's being worked on). I set up fakejdk just before I left yesterday so that I can hopefully narrow down the bug I'm currently seeing. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aph at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:17:02 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:17:02 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <20070206143722.GB3317@redhat.com> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <20070206143722.GB3317@redhat.com> Message-ID: <17864.43518.926622.979205@zebedee.pink> Andrew Overholt writes: > * Mark Wielaard [2007-02-06 04:15]: > > more standards compliant (although I guess that doesn't help if your > > application isn't using xml in a compliant way). > > Yeah, I also find it very hard to track down bugs that are deep within > Eclipse or in wacky ant scripts + custom ant tasks. Also, the lack of > debugging still sucks (yes, I know it's being worked on). Hey, I've been using the FC6 spin of gdb on Java code and it's great. Optimized code is a pain to debug, but non-optimized code works a treat. There are still a few features I'd like to add, of course. Andrew. From overholt at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:18:40 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:18:40 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <17864.43518.926622.979205@zebedee.pink> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <20070206143722.GB3317@redhat.com> <17864.43518.926622.979205@zebedee.pink> Message-ID: <20070206161840.GA16956@redhat.com> * Andrew Haley [2007-02-06 11:17]: > Andrew Overholt writes: > > * Mark Wielaard [2007-02-06 04:15]: > > > more standards compliant (although I guess that doesn't help if your > > > application isn't using xml in a compliant way). > > > > Yeah, I also find it very hard to track down bugs that are deep within > > Eclipse or in wacky ant scripts + custom ant tasks. Also, the lack of > > debugging still sucks (yes, I know it's being worked on). > > Hey, I've been using the FC6 spin of gdb on Java code and it's great. gdb isn't really a great solution for Eclipse plugins. It's doable, yes, but a PITA. > Optimized code is a pain to debug, but non-optimized code works a > treat. There are still a few features I'd like to add, of course. Are our RPMs non-optimized? Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aph at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:32:08 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:32:08 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <20070206161840.GA16956@redhat.com> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <20070206143722.GB3317@redhat.com> <17864.43518.926622.979205@zebedee.pink> <20070206161840.GA16956@redhat.com> Message-ID: <17864.44425.10470.876399@zebedee.pink> Andrew Overholt writes: > * Andrew Haley [2007-02-06 11:17]: > > Andrew Overholt writes: > > > * Mark Wielaard [2007-02-06 04:15]: > > > > more standards compliant (although I guess that doesn't help if your > > > > application isn't using xml in a compliant way). > > > > > > Yeah, I also find it very hard to track down bugs that are deep within > > > Eclipse or in wacky ant scripts + custom ant tasks. Also, the lack of > > > debugging still sucks (yes, I know it's being worked on). > > > > Hey, I've been using the FC6 spin of gdb on Java code and it's great. > > gdb isn't really a great solution for Eclipse plugins. It's doable, > yes, but a PITA. OK; I've never tried. I'm not sure why an Eclipse plugin would be any different from any other bit of Java code, but I'll take your word for it. > > Optimized code is a pain to debug, but non-optimized code works a > > treat. There are still a few features I'd like to add, of course. > > Are our RPMs non-optimized? I hope not! :-) If I need to debug an installed RPM for long enough that the weirdness of debugging optimized code starts to get on my nerves, I'll recompile the jarfile[s] in question: it's just "gcj -g -shared ... foo.jar -o /lib/foo.jar.so" Andrew. From overholt at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:16:44 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:16:44 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <073D284B-6AA4-4957-8EB5-4B3CEBCE9FCF@bluezoo.org> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <073D284B-6AA4-4957-8EB5-4B3CEBCE9FCF@bluezoo.org> Message-ID: <20070206201644.GG16956@redhat.com> * Chris Burdess [2007-02-06 09:34]: > > If there are any issues that are not listed under > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi? > query_format=specific&order=relevance > +desc&bug_status=__open__&product=&content=xml > > please let me know, ideally by opening a new ticket and assigning it > to me. I just tracked one down to a test case. I can't assign it to you but it's here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30718 Thanks, Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From overholt at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:34:40 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:34:40 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <20070207131838.GB1999@bluezoo.org> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <073D284B-6AA4-4957-8EB5-4B3CEBCE9FCF@bluezoo.org> <20070206201644.GG16956@redhat.com> <20070207131838.GB1999@bluezoo.org> Message-ID: <20070207143439.GB28294@redhat.com> * Chris Burdess [2007-02-07 08:18]: > Andrew Overholt wrote: > > I just tracked one down to a test case. I can't assign it to you but > > it's here: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30718 > > Thanks for spotting this, a fix is in HEAD. You rock, Chris! I'll try it out and move on to other bugs as I find them. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tromey at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 19:07:25 2007 From: tromey at redhat.com (Tom Tromey) Date: 07 Feb 2007 12:07:25 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <20070207143439.GB28294@redhat.com> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <073D284B-6AA4-4957-8EB5-4B3CEBCE9FCF@bluezoo.org> <20070206201644.GG16956@redhat.com> <20070207131838.GB1999@bluezoo.org> <20070207143439.GB28294@redhat.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Overholt writes: Andrew> You rock, Chris! I'll try it out and move on to other bugs as I find Andrew> them. I put this and Chris' earlier xerces-allowing XML patch into gcc svn. I think it ought to appear in the next rebuild. Tom From overholt at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 22:16:22 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:16:22 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <073D284B-6AA4-4957-8EB5-4B3CEBCE9FCF@bluezoo.org> <20070206201644.GG16956@redhat.com> <20070207131838.GB1999@bluezoo.org> <20070207143439.GB28294@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070207221622.GE6543@redhat.com> * Tom Tromey [2007-02-07 16:19]: > >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Overholt writes: > > Andrew> You rock, Chris! I'll try it out and move on to other bugs as I find > Andrew> them. > > I put this and Chris' earlier xerces-allowing XML patch into gcc svn. > I think it ought to appear in the next rebuild. Thanks. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From overholt at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 22:35:31 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:35:31 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest Message-ID: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> Hi, Some of us have decided to get together on Monday 12 February to grind through reviews for both the new packages required for maven2 and those for the existing core packages. It'd be great if people could help out with this. We hang out on #fedora-java on Freenode and will make a point of being there on Monday all day. Those of us meeting in the flesh are in EST but I hope that doesn't stop others in different timezones from participating. Deepak: can you send out some URLs to the review requests. Potentially also that list we came up with for order of review? Thanks, Andrew From betelgeuse at gentoo.org Fri Feb 9 22:48:59 2007 From: betelgeuse at gentoo.org (=?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?=) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:48:59 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> Message-ID: <45CCFA5B.4040004@gentoo.org> Andrew Overholt wrote: > Hi, > > Some of us have decided to get together on Monday 12 February to grind > through reviews for both the new packages required for maven2 and those > for the existing core packages. > Do you have notes somewhere on how you are able to build maven2 or work around it downloading dependencies from the network repository while building? This has been a long time obstacle in packaging maven2 from sources in Gentoo. http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/java/wiki/Maven_Notes Regards, Petteri -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From overholt at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 02:41:05 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 21:41:05 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <45CCFA5B.4040004@gentoo.org> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <45CCFA5B.4040004@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <20070210024104.GA11119@redhat.com> * Petteri R?ty [2007-02-09 17:49]: > > Do you have notes somewhere on how you are able to build maven2 or work > around it downloading dependencies from the network repository while > building? Deepak Bhole will be able to explain this. Perhaps he'll have some time this weekend to respond. If not, check out the JPackage package of it - that's what we'll be importing into Fedora. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From konqueror at gmx.de Sat Feb 10 09:53:51 2007 From: konqueror at gmx.de (Michael Koch) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:53:51 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <20070210024104.GA11119@redhat.com> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <45CCFA5B.4040004@gentoo.org> <20070210024104.GA11119@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070210095351.GA21014@mail.konqueror.de> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:41:05PM -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > * Petteri R?ty [2007-02-09 17:49]: > > > > Do you have notes somewhere on how you are able to build maven2 or work > > around it downloading dependencies from the network repository while > > building? > > Deepak Bhole will be able to explain this. Perhaps he'll have some time > this weekend to respond. If not, check out the JPackage package of it - > that's what we'll be importing into Fedora. Good to know, I'm interested too. I will come to the irc session too. Hopefully I get the time right this time.... Michael -- .''`. | Michael Koch : :' : | Free Java Developer `. `' | `- | 1024D/BAC5 4B28 D436 95E6 F2E0 BD11 5923 A008 2763 483B From betelgeuse at gentoo.org Sat Feb 10 10:42:53 2007 From: betelgeuse at gentoo.org (=?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?=) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:42:53 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <20070210024104.GA11119@redhat.com> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <45CCFA5B.4040004@gentoo.org> <20070210024104.GA11119@redhat.com> Message-ID: <45CDA1AD.9040509@gentoo.org> Andrew Overholt wrote: > * Petteri R?ty [2007-02-09 17:49]: >> Do you have notes somewhere on how you are able to build maven2 or work >> around it downloading dependencies from the network repository while >> building? > > Deepak Bhole will be able to explain this. Perhaps he'll have some time > this weekend to respond. If not, check out the JPackage package of it - > that's what we'll be importing into Fedora. > > Andrew I found maven-1.0 in jpackage and took a quick look. At least that one seemed to be faking a repository. Regards, Petteri -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mefoster at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 10:45:46 2007 From: mefoster at gmail.com (Mary Ellen Foster) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:45:46 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Why does eclipse now require lucene-devel? Message-ID: Just curious why the latest eclipse-platform in FC6 update-testing requires lucene-devel in addition to lucene? When I tried to update this morning, I got hit by the fact that lucene is 1.9.1 in jpackage and 1.4.3 in Fedora, and jpackage doesn't have a separate -devel subpackage; had to force-downgrade and exclude lucene from jpackage to make this work. I've bugzilla'd the out-of-date lucene in Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228141 I know next to nothing about lucene except that it's a dependency of Eclipse, but I'm just curious what the changes were. No biggie. MEF -- Mary Ellen Foster http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/ From david at zarb.org Sat Feb 10 10:52:10 2007 From: david at zarb.org (David Walluck) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:52:10 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <45CDA1AD.9040509@gentoo.org> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <45CCFA5B.4040004@gentoo.org> <20070210024104.GA11119@redhat.com> <45CDA1AD.9040509@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <45CDA3DA.2030601@zarb.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Petteri R?ty wrote: > I found maven-1.0 in jpackage and took a quick look. At least that one > seemed to be faking a repository. http://www.jpackage.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/rpms/free/maven2/?root=jpackage&hideattic=1&pathrev=JPACKAGE-1_7 - -- Sincerely, David Walluck -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFzaPaN5thZBYlTwkRAkJbAJwJnfABhkX1h+iMM+7IW2S34056UACfdNPm 7t8k3xkiqUHKR5WhxCV0tzw= =bRhm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From overholt at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:07:20 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:07:20 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Why does eclipse now require lucene-devel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070210130719.GA13423@redhat.com> Hi, * Mary Ellen Foster [2007-02-10 05:46]: > Just curious why the latest eclipse-platform in FC6 update-testing > requires lucene-devel in addition to lucene? Because eclipse.org ships a lucene-src jar that we wanted to symlink to. So our lucene package grew a lucene-devel which contains lucene-src to which we can symlink from the Eclipse SDK. > When I tried to update this morning, I got hit by the fact that lucene > is 1.9.1 in jpackage and 1.4.3 in Fedora, and jpackage doesn't have a > separate -devel subpackage; had to force-downgrade and exclude lucene > from jpackage to make this work. So you've been using the JPackage lucene with Fedora Eclipse? Interesting. We don't usually recommend mixing repos like that due to possible API differences between versions of things like lucene. Did the Eclipse help system indexing work for you? That's where it uses lucene. > I've bugzilla'd the out-of-date lucene in Fedora: We'll have to make sure the new version works with Eclipse. ISTR it not compiling against it but I guess we should investigate. Upstream is reluctant to move their dependencies forward like this. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mefoster at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 13:27:49 2007 From: mefoster at gmail.com (Mary Ellen Foster) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:27:49 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Why does eclipse now require lucene-devel? In-Reply-To: <20070210130719.GA13423@redhat.com> References: <20070210130719.GA13423@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 10/02/07, Andrew Overholt wrote: > So you've been using the JPackage lucene with Fedora Eclipse? > Interesting. We don't usually recommend mixing repos like that due to > possible API differences between versions of things like lucene. Did > the Eclipse help system indexing work for you? That's where it uses > lucene. Hee ... I have to say I haven't actually used the Eclipse help for probably several years now. (Typical programmer, never actually reads the documentation ... :) ) I remember it used to pop up a Mozilla window that I disliked. MEF -- Mary Ellen Foster http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/ From overholt at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:25:24 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:25:24 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Why does eclipse now require lucene-devel? In-Reply-To: References: <20070210130719.GA13423@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070210132523.GC13423@redhat.com> * Mary Ellen Foster [2007-02-10 08:28]: > On 10/02/07, Andrew Overholt wrote: > >So you've been using the JPackage lucene with Fedora Eclipse? > >Interesting. We don't usually recommend mixing repos like that due to > >possible API differences between versions of things like lucene. Did > >the Eclipse help system indexing work for you? That's where it uses > >lucene. > > Hee ... I have to say I haven't actually used the Eclipse help for > probably several years now. (Typical programmer, never actually reads > the documentation ... :) ) I remember it used to pop up a Mozilla > window that I disliked. It'll still do that :) If you do end up trying it with lucene 1.9, try searching for something. If you haven't done this before, it'll probably build an index. If that works, we're a large percentage of the way towards using 1.9 instead of 1.4.3. Thanks, Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From overholt at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:26:26 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:26:26 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Why does eclipse now require lucene-devel? In-Reply-To: <1171114063.29402.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070210130719.GA13423@redhat.com> <1171114063.29402.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20070210132625.GD13423@redhat.com> * Ismael Juma [2007-02-10 08:22]: > Hi, > > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:07 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > [...] > > We'll have to make sure the new version works with Eclipse. ISTR it not > > compiling against it but I guess we should investigate. Upstream is > > reluctant to move their dependencies forward like this. > > According to this bug[1], eclipse 3.3 will depend on lucene 1.9.1. They > can't use lucene 2.0 (or the soon to be released 2.1) because they rely > on deprecated APIs that were removed from 2.x. Cool, thanks for letting us know. Perhaps we should look at helping them move forward. Otherwise, we'll have to have 1.9.1 in F8. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From overholt at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 17:25:42 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:25:42 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> Hi, * Andrew Overholt [2007-02-09 17:35]: > > Some of us have decided to get together on Monday 12 February to grind > through reviews for both the new packages required for maven2 and those > for the existing core packages. The maven2 review requests are here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=Review+Request&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=rafaels%40redhat.com&order=Importance Deepak made a graph of build dependencies and we think these ones can be done without depending on something that isn't currently in core: jtidy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 gnu-regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227057 bea-stax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041 xmldb-api https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 ant-contrib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 dom2-core-tests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 isorelax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 relagxngDatatype https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227112 objectweb-anttask https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 tagsoup https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 classpathx-jaxp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 xpp2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 xpp3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 junitperf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 piccolo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227092 javassist https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 gnu-trove (I can't find the review request for this one ... Rafael? Deepak?) jrexx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 jflex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 servletapi4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227116 jython https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 This has already been approved but we need to investigate the inclusion of python 2.2. Is it just a BR? If not, I'm concerned about shipping another python version in the distro. We're also not sure if it's completely necessary ... supposedly batik needs it but we're hoping we can avoid that dependency. plexus-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 dtdparser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 emma https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227052 jakarta-commons-cli https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227063 nekohtml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 jakarta-commons-io https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227064 maven2-common-poms (need to remove erroneous saxon BR) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227079 Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From betelgeuse at gentoo.org Sun Feb 11 10:06:06 2007 From: betelgeuse at gentoo.org (=?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?=) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:06:06 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> Message-ID: <45CEEA8E.1020801@gentoo.org> Andrew Overholt wrote: > Hi, > > jython > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 > This has already been approved but we need to investigate the inclusion > of python 2.2. Is it just a BR? If not, I'm concerned about shipping > another python version in the distro. We're also not sure if it's > completely necessary ... supposedly batik needs it but we're hoping we > can avoid that dependency. > This is probably useful: http://dev.gentoo.org/~betelgeuse/jython-reverse-deps.txt Regards, Petteri -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dbhole at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 19:32:53 2007 From: dbhole at redhat.com (Deepak Bhole) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:32:53 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <45CDA1AD.9040509@gentoo.org> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <45CCFA5B.4040004@gentoo.org> <20070210024104.GA11119@redhat.com> <45CDA1AD.9040509@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <1171222374.29573.38.camel@localhost> On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 12:42 +0200, Petteri R?ty wrote: > Andrew Overholt wrote: > > * Petteri R?ty [2007-02-09 17:49]: > >> Do you have notes somewhere on how you are able to build maven2 or work > >> around it downloading dependencies from the network repository while > >> building? > > > > Deepak Bhole will be able to explain this. Perhaps he'll have some time > > this weekend to respond. If not, check out the JPackage package of it - > > that's what we'll be importing into Fedora. > > > > Andrew > > I found maven-1.0 in jpackage and took a quick look. At least that one > seemed to be faking a repository. > Hi Petteri, Maven2 does does something similar. The JPackage (and soon to be in Fedora) maven2 has code ammendments made to it to: 1) Allow complete offline behavior 2) Allow it to use /usr/share/java as a repository A mapping subsystem is added to maven2 (via patches during rpmbuild) that allows the user to tell maven2 where the jar is in /usr/share/java based on the original groupid/artifactid. All of the changes have been made such that they are optional i.e. unless specific properties are defined at run time, maven2 will behave exactly like upstream maven, bypassing all changes made by rpm patches. Let me know if you need specific details on any of the changes. Cheers, Deepak > Regards, > Petteri > From betelgeuse at gentoo.org Sun Feb 11 19:41:14 2007 From: betelgeuse at gentoo.org (=?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?=) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:41:14 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <1171222374.29573.38.camel@localhost> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <45CCFA5B.4040004@gentoo.org> <20070210024104.GA11119@redhat.com> <45CDA1AD.9040509@gentoo.org> <1171222374.29573.38.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <45CF715A.7080302@gentoo.org> Deepak Bhole wrote: > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 12:42 +0200, Petteri R?ty wrote: >> Andrew Overholt wrote: >>> * Petteri R?ty [2007-02-09 17:49]: >>>> Do you have notes somewhere on how you are able to build maven2 or work >>>> around it downloading dependencies from the network repository while >>>> building? >>> Deepak Bhole will be able to explain this. Perhaps he'll have some time >>> this weekend to respond. If not, check out the JPackage package of it - >>> that's what we'll be importing into Fedora. >>> >>> Andrew >> I found maven-1.0 in jpackage and took a quick look. At least that one >> seemed to be faking a repository. >> > > Hi Petteri, > > Maven2 does does something similar. The JPackage (and soon to be in > Fedora) maven2 has code ammendments made to it to: > > 1) Allow complete offline behavior > 2) Allow it to use /usr/share/java as a repository > > A mapping subsystem is added to maven2 (via patches during rpmbuild) > that allows the user to tell maven2 where the jar is in /usr/share/java > based on the original groupid/artifactid. > > All of the changes have been made such that they are optional i.e. > unless specific properties are defined at run time, maven2 will behave > exactly like upstream maven, bypassing all changes made by rpm patches. > > Let me know if you need specific details on any of the changes. > > Cheers, > Deepak > Thanks. We should be able to do a similar integration between maven and the way we package jars using that code as a template. Regards, Petteri -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dbhole at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 20:07:04 2007 From: dbhole at redhat.com (Deepak Bhole) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:07:04 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1171224424.4620.4.camel@localhost> On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 12:25 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > Hi, > > * Andrew Overholt [2007-02-09 17:35]: > > > > Some of us have decided to get together on Monday 12 February to grind > > through reviews for both the new packages required for maven2 and those > > for the existing core packages. > > The maven2 review requests are here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=Review+Request&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=rafaels%40redhat.com&order=Importance > > Deepak made a graph of build dependencies and we think these ones can be > done without depending on something that isn't currently in core: > Thanks for sending the list Andrew. > jtidy > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 > > > gnu-trove > (I can't find the review request for this one ... Rafael? Deepak?) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 That package is currently names gnu.trove in JPackage. A name change is required to comply with Fedora guidelines. Fernando Nasser has already made a comment there accordingly. Cheers, Deepak From foster at in.tum.de Mon Feb 12 08:11:48 2007 From: foster at in.tum.de (Mary Ellen Foster) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:11:48 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Why does eclipse now require lucene-devel? In-Reply-To: <20070210132523.GC13423@redhat.com> References: <20070210130719.GA13423@redhat.com> <20070210132523.GC13423@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 10/02/07, Andrew Overholt wrote: > > Hee ... I have to say I haven't actually used the Eclipse help for > > probably several years now. (Typical programmer, never actually reads > > the documentation ... :) ) I remember it used to pop up a Mozilla > > window that I disliked. > > It'll still do that :) If you do end up trying it with lucene 1.9, try > searching for something. If you haven't done this before, it'll > probably build an index. If that works, we're a large percentage of the > way towards using 1.9 instead of 1.4.3. I couldn't try this on my laptop at home because I'd already done the update/downgrade of lucene and I didn't want to rollback. But I just tried on my work machine this morning, and as far as I can tell help is working fine with: - eclipse-platform-3.2.1-23.fc6 - lucene-1.9.1-1jpp Of course this was by no means an exhaustive test, but everything seemed to work fine; when I went to "Search" it built an index and then searches seemed to be successful. But like I said, I haven't used this for years so there could be something wrong that I'm not noticing. MEF -- Mary Ellen Foster http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/ From overholt at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 12:44:31 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:44:31 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Why does eclipse now require lucene-devel? In-Reply-To: References: <20070210130719.GA13423@redhat.com> <20070210132523.GC13423@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070212124431.GA32480@redhat.com> * Mary Ellen Foster [2007-02-12 03:12]: > >If you haven't done this before, it'll probably build an index. If > >that works, we're a large percentage of the way towards using 1.9 > >instead of 1.4.3. > > [...] > But I just tried on my work machine this morning, and as far as I can > tell help is working fine with: > - eclipse-platform-3.2.1-23.fc6 > - lucene-1.9.1-1jpp Thanks for trying this! Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:19:26 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:19:26 -0800 Subject: [fedora-java] F7 plan (gcj/java/eclipse/swt/java-gnome/fop/batik/etc) In-Reply-To: <1167818249.2840.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1167421316.19763.82.camel@localhost.localdomain> <459A7C16.8090100@redhat.com> <1167752991.21560.4.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <20070102190029.43db608e.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> <1167818249.2840.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1171307966.3265.146.camel@erato.phig.org> > Yes, these priorities are useful. Since we are mostly compiler, runtime, > library hackers, and don't actually know much about the processes of the > doc-team, could you describe the "workflow" you would do? If you could > describe/show some sample input files, the stylesheets you would use, > the commands you would use to transform them and how you would expect > the rendered output files to look like that would be very helpful. Mark: Sorry I've not been watching this thread as carefully on f-devel-java-l. When you are ready for some testing from our toolchain, please post to fedora-docs-list. thx - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dbhole at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:16:12 2007 From: dbhole at redhat.com (Deepak Bhole) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:16:12 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 12:25 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > Hi, > > * Andrew Overholt [2007-02-09 17:35]: > > > > Some of us have decided to get together on Monday 12 February to grind > > through reviews for both the new packages required for maven2 and those > > for the existing core packages. > > The maven2 review requests are here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=Review+Request&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=rafaels%40redhat.com&order=Importance > > Deepak made a graph of build dependencies and we think these ones can be > done without depending on something that isn't currently in core: > Hi All, I need all the built rpms for the packages mentioned in the parent message. Those rpms are the level 1 dependencies and are needed to build the rest of the stack. The next level is specified below. Items from here on must be built in the specified order. As you build them, please send me the built rpms. ws-jaxme -- Taken. I am doing it. checkstyle (Needs to be built between fop and jaxen -- I will take this) asm -- Being done by Nuno. -- Items below are up for grabs -- asm2 jarjar saxon (needs to be built with a pre-built fop.jar (which needs nothing at build-time)) xom saxon8 msv jaxon-bootstrap (needs to be ant-ified) dom4j xmlbeans (disable maven plugin) rhino httpunit excalibur-avalon-logkit (needs conversion from maven) byaccj qdox (need to be built with jmock.jar initially) aspectwerkz cglib jmock excalibur-avalon-framework (needs conversion from maven) batik (hack out jython dep) fop jaxen (can it be ant-ified?) pmd jline (needs maven2 for bootstrapping) classworlds plexus-container-default plexus-archiver plexus-velocity jakarta-commons-net (needs ant-ification) aspectj plexus-interactivity maven-wagon (spec shows more deps than graph!) plexus-compiler plexus-i18n plexus-xmlrpc --- Items below may *not* be in proper order. I will investigate these later today --- plexus-appserver modello (supposedly needs velocity and dtdparser which aren't in list) --- these have circular deps with maven2 --- plexus-cdc plexus-runtime-builder plexus-bsh-factory plexus-ant-factory maven-surefire (buildable with ant) maven-shared maven-jxr (buildable with ant) maven-scm (buildable with ant) maven2 --- question marks --- plexus-maven-plugin maven-doxia Deepak From overholt at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:58:29 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:58:29 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20070213155829.GA18213@redhat.com> * Deepak Bhole [2007-02-13 10:16]: > > I need all the built rpms for the packages mentioned in the parent > message. I've uploaded the ones I built here: http://overholt.ca/fedora Specifically: isorelax: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.noarch.rpm http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-javadoc-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.noarch.rpm relaxngDatatype: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/relaxngDatatype-javadoc-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From betelgeuse at gentoo.org Tue Feb 13 16:42:58 2007 From: betelgeuse at gentoo.org (=?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?=) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:42:58 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <45D1EA92.6050309@gentoo.org> Deepak Bhole wrote: > pmd > jline (needs maven2 for bootstrapping) > classworlds A trick the Gentoo people have been using is to use maven-ant-plugin to generate build.xml files for things like jline. Hope this helps. Regards, Petteri -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From fitzsim at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:29:30 2007 From: fitzsim at redhat.com (Thomas Fitzsimmons) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:29:30 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <45D2038A.1000808@redhat.com> Deepak Bhole wrote: > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 12:25 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> * Andrew Overholt [2007-02-09 17:35]: >>> Some of us have decided to get together on Monday 12 February to grind >>> through reviews for both the new packages required for maven2 and those >>> for the existing core packages. >> The maven2 review requests are here: >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=Review+Request&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=rafaels%40redhat.com&order=Importance >> >> Deepak made a graph of build dependencies and we think these ones can be >> done without depending on something that isn't currently in core: >> > > Hi All, > > I need all the built rpms for the packages mentioned in the parent > message. Those rpms are the level 1 dependencies and are needed to build > the rest of the stack. The next level is specified below. Items from > here on must be built in the specified order. As you build them, please > send me the built rpms. The built rpms should be produced by mock since that will give us the closest approximation to what will be built into Fedora. We don't want to risk testing invalid packages as dependencies of these level 2 packages, and then have the builds fail in the pristine environment mock sets up. Tom From joe at galway.net Sat Feb 17 15:59:34 2007 From: joe at galway.net (Joe Desbonnet) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:59:34 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] Java APIs for image thumbnail generation Message-ID: <1cef3e950702170759s46b1457enaf4744a83d6a2cfb@mail.gmail.com> Probably a little OT as it's not a Fedora specific question, but this spills into the JNI area so I though I'd bounce this question of Fedora Java developers. Some of my Java server side apps feature image databases and there is a need to generate thumbnails for the images. Up to now I've been using the JAI (Java Advanced Imaging) API, but I was never happy with the results. The ImageMagick "convert" utility always produced much better results. After Googleing this topic I've come to the conclusion that despite all the image manipulation APIs in the Java standard, there is no way to produce a thumbnail of the same quality as a "convert -geometry 100x100" command. (Am I right in saying this?). So I've given up on a pure Java solution and I'm currently forking a process running convert for thumbnail generation. Apart from generating superior quality thumbnails, it also seems to be a more memory-friendly solution. I've also looked at the JMagick JNI wrapper for ImageMagic, but the simple fork technique has worked well so far so I'm not sure if there is any huge advantage to using the JNI path to ImageMagick. My question is: does anyone have a better solution for thumbnail generation? A platform neutral solution would be best, but I'm willing to assume a Linux server failing that. The Java VM must be in headless mode however as it's running on a server. Thanks, Joe. From fkung at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 15:51:32 2007 From: fkung at redhat.com (Francis Kung) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:51:32 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Java APIs for image thumbnail generation In-Reply-To: <1cef3e950702170759s46b1457enaf4744a83d6a2cfb@mail.gmail.com> References: <1cef3e950702170759s46b1457enaf4744a83d6a2cfb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45D9C784.7050906@redhat.com> Hi Joe, > despite all the image manipulation APIs in the Java > standard, there is no way to produce a thumbnail of the same quality > as a "convert -geometry 100x100" command. (Am I right in saying > this?). Probably. ImageMagick is dedicated to image manipulation, while Java is really a "jack of all trades", and so I wouldn't be surprised at all. > but the simple fork technique has worked well so far > so I'm not sure if there is any huge advantage to using the JNI path > to ImageMagick. Convenience and paradigm, really. I've used JMagick before and it lets you call everything as a Java method, rather than building command(s) and exec'ing them... but functionally, I don't think there's a difference. > My question is: does anyone have a better solution for thumbnail > generation? None that I can think of. If java.image or JAI don't give you the quality you need, then pulling in an external library (ie, ImageMagick) is your best bet. Cheers, Francis From green at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:33:58 2007 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:33:58 -0800 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <20070213155829.GA18213@redhat.com> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070213155829.GA18213@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1171982038.9028.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 10:58 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > I've uploaded the ones I built here: > > http://overholt.ca/fedora I was about to start looking at the java packages up for review when I noticed that they all still have "jpp" in the name, which, from what I recall, violates the Fedora package naming guidelines... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaPackageNaming I've been removing "jpp" from the package name for packages I've moved into FE (except for an early one, jakarta-commons-cli, which I'll clean up for F7). Did you guys discuss this when you started submitting these packages? AG From overholt at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:39:34 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:39:34 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <1171982038.9028.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070213155829.GA18213@redhat.com> <1171982038.9028.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20070220143934.GB15115@redhat.com> CCing Fernando * Anthony Green [2007-02-20 09:34]: > > I was about to start looking at the java packages up for review Ooh, please do :) The status of the ones in the maven2 stack are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaPackagingStatus (the wiki page should probably be renamed) > I've been removing "jpp" from the package name for packages I've moved > into FE (except for an early one, jakarta-commons-cli, which I'll clean > up for F7). Did you guys discuss this when you started submitting these > packages? Apparently it's okay. There was an exception proposed by spot and voted in on fedora-packaging, I believe. Fernando would know, though. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dbhole at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:40:22 2007 From: dbhole at redhat.com (Deepak Bhole) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:40:22 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <1171982038.9028.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070213155829.GA18213@redhat.com> <1171982038.9028.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1171982422.23064.37.camel@localhost> On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 06:33 -0800, Anthony Green wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 10:58 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: > > I've uploaded the ones I built here: > > > > http://overholt.ca/fedora > > I was about to start looking at the java packages up for review when I > noticed that they all still have "jpp" in the name, which, from what I > recall, violates the Fedora package naming guidelines... > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaPackageNaming > > I've been removing "jpp" from the package name for packages I've moved > into FE (except for an early one, jakarta-commons-cli, which I'll clean > up for F7). Did you guys discuss this when you started submitting these > packages? > Actually, that is an older draft. Here is what we are supposed to follow: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/JPackagePolicy Deepak > AG > > From green at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:56:55 2007 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:56:55 -0800 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <1171982422.23064.37.camel@localhost> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070213155829.GA18213@redhat.com> <1171982038.9028.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1171982422.23064.37.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1171983415.9028.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 09:40 -0500, Deepak Bhole wrote: > Actually, that is an older draft. Here is what we are supposed to > follow: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/JPackagePolicy That's great. I've added a link to this policy page from the old draft in the wiki. Thanks, AG From fnasser at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 16:24:00 2007 From: fnasser at redhat.com (Fernando Nasser) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:24:00 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] java specfile reviewfest In-Reply-To: <1171982038.9028.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070209223531.GA8068@redhat.com> <20070210172541.GA19116@redhat.com> <1171379772.13882.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070213155829.GA18213@redhat.com> <1171982038.9028.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <45DC7220.3090705@redhat.com> Hi Anthony, Anthony Green wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 10:58 -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote: >> I've uploaded the ones I built here: >> >> http://overholt.ca/fedora > > I was about to start looking at the java packages up for review when I > noticed that they all still have "jpp" in the name, which, from what I > recall, violates the Fedora package naming guidelines... > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaPackageNaming > > I've been removing "jpp" from the package name for packages I've moved > into FE (except for an early one, jakarta-commons-cli, which I'll clean > up for F7). Did you guys discuss this when you started submitting these > packages? > Actually, _now_ they are in violation of the guidelines :-) (they will indeed be removed when the new rpm with Categories are in and yum is changed accordingly). Will you guys be able to add it back? Cheers, Fernando From kwade at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:46:28 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:46:28 -0800 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1172169988.28975.19.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:14 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > And a slight problem with the alternative libraries is that at least for > GPl applications xerces and/or xalan come under an incompatible license > (GPLv3 will be compatible, but no applications use that yet). But we can > try to make only non-GPL works based on these libraries use them I > guess. +1 That would be great if you all have reasons for getting xerces/xalan in Fedora. We were going to ask for it anyway for the Fedora DocBook toolchain. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From overholt at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 20:19:47 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:19:47 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <1172169988.28975.19.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <1172169988.28975.19.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <20070222201947.GE388@redhat.com> * Karsten Wade [2007-02-22 13:46]: > That would be great if you all have reasons for getting xerces/xalan in > Fedora. We were going to ask for it anyway for the Fedora DocBook > toolchain. Both are already in Fedora. At least, they were in FC6. I'd guess they have been in for quite a few releases. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jjohnstn at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:49:20 2007 From: jjohnstn at redhat.com (Jeff Johnston) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:49:20 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] eclipse-cdt-3.1.2 with Autotools 0.0.8 support available Message-ID: <45DE0FE0.6050107@redhat.com> This is to announce that version 3.1.2 of the Eclipse CDT is now available for Fedora. The RPMs also contain the latest Autotools plugin release, 0.0.8. The Autotools 0.0.8 plug-in has been updated from 0.0.7 to contain an improved Autoconf editor including outline support and rudimentary syntax parsing. As this project is under heavy development, we would greatly appreciate any testing and feedback. For FC6, the RPMs can be installed from the updates-testing repo. For F7, the RPMs can be installed from Rawhide. Any bugs should be submitted to bugzilla.redhat.com for Fedora Core under component eclipse-cdt. From gbenson at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:40:39 2007 From: gbenson at redhat.com (Gary Benson) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:40:39 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] gnuxml -> xerces/xalan? In-Reply-To: <20070222201947.GE388@redhat.com> References: <20070205214104.GC7395@redhat.com> <1170753293.3529.13.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <1172169988.28975.19.camel@erato.phig.org> <20070222201947.GE388@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070223104039.GA4402@redhat.com> Andrew Overholt wrote: > * Karsten Wade [2007-02-22 13:46]: > > That would be great if you all have reasons for getting > > xerces/xalan in Fedora. We were going to ask for it anyway > > for the Fedora DocBook toolchain. > > Both are already in Fedora. At least, they were in FC6. > I'd guess they have been in for quite a few releases. Since FC2 :) http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/1203902/com/xalan-j-2.4.1-14.i386.rpm.html Cheers, Gary From mefoster at gmail.com Fri Feb 23 10:43:20 2007 From: mefoster at gmail.com (Mary Ellen Foster) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:43:20 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Another weird jpackage/Fedora thing Message-ID: With the most recent update to Eclipse, I again had the following sequence. Before this whole process, I had tomcat5-5.5.20-5jpp from JPackage installed. (NB: I don't actually *use* tomcat, but other stuff pulls it in) I attempted "yum update". The dependency-checking output included: --> Processing Dependency: tomcat5 >= 5.5.17 for package: eclipse-platform --> Restarting Dependency Resolution with new changes. --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Downloading header for tomcat5 to pack into transaction set. tomcat5-5.5.17-6jpp.2.i38 100% |=========================| 24 kB 00:00 ---> Package tomcat5.i386 0:5.5.17-6jpp.2 set to be updated And the proposed set of resolved dependencies included: Installing for dependencies: tomcat5 i386 5.5.17-6jpp.2 core 318 k After I hit "Y" and all of the packages downloaded, I got: Transaction Check Error: package tomcat5-5.5.20-5jpp (which is newer than tomcat5-5.5.17-6jpp.2) is already installed Well, yes, that's true. But it shouldn't even have tried to install the older one, should it? The dependency is on ">= 5.5.17" ... Anyway, to solve this, I did "rpm -e --nodeps tomcat5" and then the yum update, which correctly downloaded installed tomcat5-5.5.17-6jpp.2 from Core as part of its dependency solving. Then, when I did a second "yum update", it happily updated me to tomcat5-5.5.20-5jpp from jpackage again. So Eclipse and JPackage tomcat seem to be able to coexist happily (at least at the dependency level) as long as tomcat is updated after Eclipse. But somehow every time I try to do an update, yum wants to install the older tomcat again even though it's already got a newer one it appears to be happy with. Is this something to do with the fact that the core package is i386 and the JPP one is noarch? Or something else? It seems to be a yum-level problem, probably, but I just wanted to see if anyone else had insights. Thanks! MEF -- Mary Ellen Foster http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/