From overholt at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 13:36:29 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:36:29 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] axis2 In-Reply-To: <4728D022.4090306@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4728D022.4090306@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20071101133458.GA25001@redhat.com> Hi, * Christoph H?ger [2007-10-31 14:58]: > > am I right when I say that there is currnently no fedora package for axis2 > ? I don't see anything. Deepak is on vacation right now, but I *think* he knows about the JPackage version of the package. He'll respond when he gets back. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mark at klomp.org Mon Nov 12 09:42:15 2007 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:42:15 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora 8 - missing rt.jar/core classes Thread/Object compiling frysk Message-ID: <1194860535.3024.8.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi, I heard a couple of reports on irc and now I got the same failure myself on a fresh Fedora 8 install (x86_64 - I am not seeing this on my x86 Fedora 8 install that got upgraded from Test 3, there everything is fine). The issue is compiling frysk (or anything else using gcjh): Exception in thread "main" java.io.IOException: can't find class file java/lang/Thread.class in java.net.URLClassLoader{urls=[file:/home/mark/src/git/frysk-obj/frysk-imports/tests/./,file:/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/rt.jar], parent=gnu.gcj.runtime.SystemClassLoader{urls=[file:./], parent=gnu.gcj.runtime.ExtensionClassLoader{urls=[], parent=null}}} This is caused by a broken symlink: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 2007-11-09 23:34 /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/rt.jar -> /libgcj-4.1.2.jar This can manually be fixed by setting the symlink to /usr/share/java/libgcj-4.1.2.jar Filed as bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=377341 Cheers, Mark From si at siancu.net Tue Nov 13 21:21:37 2007 From: si at siancu.net (Stelian Iancu) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:21:37 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] eclipse-jdt dependencies in F8 Message-ID: <473A1561.40005@siancu.net> Hi all, I want to install eclipse-jdt in F8 and I see that it requires jetty and tomcat5. Can somebody please explain why? I don't intend to do any web development with eclipse. Regards, Stelian Iancu From aph at redhat.com Tue Nov 13 21:28:46 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:28:46 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] eclipse-jdt dependencies in F8 In-Reply-To: <473A1561.40005@siancu.net> References: <473A1561.40005@siancu.net> Message-ID: <18234.5902.694963.785677@zebedee.pink> Stelian Iancu writes: > I want to install eclipse-jdt in F8 and I see that it requires jetty and > tomcat5. Can somebody please explain why? I don't intend to do any web > development with eclipse. It uses tomcat to run the help browser. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903 From overholt at redhat.com Tue Nov 13 21:27:34 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:27:34 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] eclipse-jdt dependencies in F8 In-Reply-To: <18234.5902.694963.785677@zebedee.pink> References: <473A1561.40005@siancu.net> <18234.5902.694963.785677@zebedee.pink> Message-ID: <20071113212733.GA15282@redhat.com> * Andrew Haley [2007-11-13 16:29]: > Stelian Iancu writes: > > > I want to install eclipse-jdt in F8 and I see that it requires jetty and > > tomcat5. Can somebody please explain why? I don't intend to do any web > > development with eclipse. > > It uses tomcat to run the help browser. It actually uses jetty to run the help browser now. But tomcat is also included as part of the SDK so we include it as a dependency. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From orion at cora.nwra.com Thu Nov 15 16:49:27 2007 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:49:27 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] Problem building package for ppc-devel Message-ID: <473C7897.2030202@cora.nwra.com> I've got a package up for review (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=316141) that builds fine for F8, and for devel-x86_64 but fails on devel-ppc during a java compile. Error (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=243056&name=build.log) is: _____Making JAVA targets_____ Buildfile: build.xml init: drmaa: [java] Buildfile: build.xml [java] [java] init: [java] [java] BUILD FAILED [java] /builddir/build/BUILD/gridengine/source/classes/build.xml:42: Execute failed: java.io.IOException: java.io.IOException: No such file or directory [java] [java] Total time: 1 second BUILD FAILED /builddir/build/BUILD/gridengine/source/build.xml:39: The following error occurred while executing this line: /builddir/build/BUILD/gridengine/source/build.xml:18: Java returned: 1 I've attached build.xml. I'm at a loss. Any suggestions for debugging would be greatly appreciated. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: build.xml Type: text/xml Size: 2697 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foster at in.tum.de Thu Nov 15 17:03:11 2007 From: foster at in.tum.de (Mary Ellen Foster) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:03:11 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] Problem building package for ppc-devel In-Reply-To: <473C7897.2030202@cora.nwra.com> References: <473C7897.2030202@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: On 15/11/2007, Orion Poplawski wrote: > /builddir/build/BUILD/gridengine/source/classes/build.xml:42: Execute > failed: java.io.IOException: java.io.IOException: No such file or directory > [java] > [java] Total time: 1 second > > BUILD FAILED > /builddir/build/BUILD/gridengine/source/build.xml:39: The following > error occurred while executing this line: > /builddir/build/BUILD/gridengine/source/build.xml:18: Java returned: 1 > > I've attached build.xml. I'm at a loss. Any suggestions for debugging > would be greatly appreciated. Which build.xml did you attach -- source/build.xml or source/classes/build.xml? It looks like the actual problem is in source/classes ... MEF -- Mary Ellen Foster -- http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/ Informatik 6: Robotics and Embedded Systems, Technische Universit?t M?nchen and ICCS, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh From orion at cora.nwra.com Thu Nov 15 17:18:14 2007 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:18:14 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] Problem building package for ppc-devel In-Reply-To: References: <473C7897.2030202@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <473C7F56.2010307@cora.nwra.com> Mary Ellen Foster wrote: > Which build.xml did you attach -- source/build.xml or > source/classes/build.xml? It looks like the actual problem is in > source/classes ... > > MEF > Ah, here we are: and hostname is no longer in the build roots in devel. Thanks! -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From orion at cora.nwra.com Fri Nov 16 17:29:06 2007 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:29:06 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] eclipse-photran review Message-ID: <473DD362.60801@cora.nwra.com> I've finally packaged up the Photran eplipse plugin. It could probably use a java person to at least look at it if not review it. Thanks! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=378951 -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From ihok at hotmail.com Wed Nov 21 19:13:36 2007 From: ihok at hotmail.com (Jack Tanner) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:13:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [fedora-java] eclipse and icedtea in f8 Message-ID: What are the plans for updating Eclipse and IcedTea in F8? Are they going to stay at their current releases, 3.3.0 and -b21, respectively, or will they get updates? Of course, 3.3.1.1 and -b23 are already out. I ask because I'm running into some crashes with 3.3.0 on -b21. I could try to file bugs, but it seems like a waste of everyone's time to file bugs against old releases. From overholt at redhat.com Wed Nov 21 20:12:55 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:12:55 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] eclipse and icedtea in f8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071121201254.GA12613@redhat.com> * Jack Tanner [2007-11-21 14:15]: > What are the plans for updating Eclipse and IcedTea in F8? Are they going to > stay at their current releases, 3.3.0 and -b21, respectively, or will they get > updates? Of course, 3.3.1.1 and -b23 are already out. I can't speak for IcedTea, but 3.3.1.1 would already be available in Fedora if it weren't for stupid ppc64 build issues :( I think I'm almost there, though. > I ask because I'm running into some crashes with 3.3.0 on -b21. I could try to > file bugs, but it seems like a waste of everyone's time to file bugs against old > releases. PermGen issues? Try moving eclipse.ini from /usr/share/eclipse to /usr/lib (or lib64)/eclipse and making it look something like this (the last line is key): -showsplash org.eclipse.platform -vmargs -Xms40m -Xmx256m --XX:MaxPermSize=128m HTH, Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From neugens at limasoftware.net Wed Nov 21 20:22:01 2007 From: neugens at limasoftware.net (Mario Torre) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:22:01 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] eclipse and icedtea in f8 In-Reply-To: <20071121201254.GA12613@redhat.com> References: <20071121201254.GA12613@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1195676521.3683.3.camel@nirvana.limasoftware.net> Il giorno mer, 21/11/2007 alle 15.12 -0500, Andrew Overholt ha scritto: > --XX:MaxPermSize=128m I've added this to my eclipse launcher in the gnome panel eclipse -vmargs -Xms512m -XX:PermSize=512m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m -Xmx512m Since then, I've not seen anymore crashes nor problems of any other kind. Hope that helps, Mario -- Lima Software - http://www.limasoftware.net/ GNU Classpath Developer - http://www.classpath.org/ Fedora Ambassador - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MarioTorre Jabber: neugens at jabber.org pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Please, support open standards: http://opendocumentfellowship.org/petition/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ From overholt at redhat.com Wed Nov 21 20:42:24 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:42:24 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] eclipse and icedtea in f8 In-Reply-To: <1195676521.3683.3.camel@nirvana.limasoftware.net> References: <20071121201254.GA12613@redhat.com> <1195676521.3683.3.camel@nirvana.limasoftware.net> Message-ID: <20071121204223.GA12736@redhat.com> * Mario Torre [2007-11-21 15:22]: > > Il giorno mer, 21/11/2007 alle 15.12 -0500, Andrew Overholt ha scritto: > > --XX:MaxPermSize=128m > > I've added this to my eclipse launcher in the gnome panel > > eclipse -vmargs -Xms512m -XX:PermSize=512m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m -Xmx512m Yeah, although your options are slightly different, eclipse.ini achieves the same thing. The problem is that the defaults weren't being read because they were in /usr/share/eclipse/eclipse.ini when they should have been in /usr/lib{64}/eclipse/eclipse.ini. A forthcoming 3.3.1.1 update will fix the defaults. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sander at hoentjen.eu Sun Nov 25 14:37:02 2007 From: sander at hoentjen.eu (Sander Hoentjen) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:37:02 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj Message-ID: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> Hi all, There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? Regards, Sander From aph at redhat.com Sun Nov 25 16:55:06 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:55:06 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> Message-ID: <18249.43242.667525.726747@zebedee.pink> Sander Hoentjen writes: > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? It would be better to avoid that. Why won't it compile with gcj? Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903 From overholt at redhat.com Sun Nov 25 19:09:54 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:09:54 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> Message-ID: <20071125190953.GA17446@redhat.com> Hi, * Sander Hoentjen [2007-11-25 09:37]: > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? Ideally things would build with gcj and be usable on all arches, but I don't think Fedora has a policy of excluding IcedTea-only packages. Does anyone know if we've come up with a policy? 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 Sun Nov 25 19:20:54 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:20:54 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <20071125190953.GA17446@redhat.com> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> <20071125190953.GA17446@redhat.com> Message-ID: <18249.51990.848378.371700@zebedee.pink> Andrew Overholt writes: > Hi, > > * Sander Hoentjen [2007-11-25 09:37]: > > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't > > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? > > Ideally things would build with gcj and be usable on all arches, but I > don't think Fedora has a policy of excluding IcedTea-only packages. > Does anyone know if we've come up with a policy? We shouldn't need one. Lat's first try to find out what the problem actually is. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903 From sander at hoentjen.eu Sun Nov 25 19:24:36 2007 From: sander at hoentjen.eu (Sander Hoentjen) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:24:36 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <18249.43242.667525.726747@zebedee.pink> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> <18249.43242.667525.726747@zebedee.pink> Message-ID: <1196018677.17800.32.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 16:55 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > Sander Hoentjen writes: > > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't > > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? > > It would be better to avoid that. Why won't it compile with gcj? The method getMousePosition() is undefined for the type Component So.. how much better is it to avoid it? Do I have to patch the whole program to not use that function (I don't know if I can do it), or should I just go for icedtea? Sander From aph at redhat.com Mon Nov 26 09:28:38 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:28:38 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <1196018677.17800.32.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> <18249.43242.667525.726747@zebedee.pink> <1196018677.17800.32.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> Message-ID: <18250.37318.221949.647654@zebedee.pink> Sander Hoentjen writes: > On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 16:55 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Sander Hoentjen writes: > > > > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't > > > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? > > > > It would be better to avoid that. Why won't it compile with gcj? > > The method getMousePosition() is undefined for the type Component > So.. how much better is it to avoid it? Do I have to patch the whole > program to not use that function (I don't know if I can do it), or > should I just go for icedtea? Ah, okay, this is a method that is new since Java 1.5. While we can make your package depend on IcedTea if there is absolutely no way to avoid doing so, it would be better either to fix libgcj or to fix your program so as to avoid getMousePosition(). Fixing libgcj looks pretty trivial: Component.getMousePosition() simply calls MouseInfo.getPointerInfo() and adjusts the info relative to the co-ordinates of its own window. Calling Classpath AWT mainatainers: can anyone catch this? Thanks, Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903 From fitzsim at redhat.com Mon Nov 26 19:50:08 2007 From: fitzsim at redhat.com (Thomas Fitzsimmons) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:50:08 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> Message-ID: <474B2370.20804@redhat.com> Sander Hoentjen wrote: > Hi all, > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was that packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on the base Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64) without requiring external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant packages had to run on ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9, IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter should suffice. So while ideally the package would build on both, pragmatically I'd say go ahead and build require IcedTea. Tom From aph at redhat.com Mon Nov 26 20:00:12 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:00:12 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <474B2370.20804@redhat.com> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> <474B2370.20804@redhat.com> Message-ID: <18251.9676.718268.901369@zebedee.pink> Thomas Fitzsimmons writes: > Sander Hoentjen wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't > > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? > > During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build > requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was that > packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on the base > Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64) without requiring > external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant packages had to run on > ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9, IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter > should suffice. So while ideally the package would build on both, > pragmatically I'd say go ahead and build require IcedTea. I understand that, but it would surely be better in this case to get the fix into libgcj. It's not particularly difficult to do, and surely we can be allowed the short time it would take to get the fix in, and then the package would run everywhere. Sure, it's tempting to take the easy road, but in this case it's not hugely difficult to do the right thing. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903 From fitzsim at redhat.com Mon Nov 26 20:09:23 2007 From: fitzsim at redhat.com (Thomas Fitzsimmons) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:09:23 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <18251.9676.718268.901369@zebedee.pink> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> <474B2370.20804@redhat.com> <18251.9676.718268.901369@zebedee.pink> Message-ID: <474B27F3.3060100@redhat.com> Andrew Haley wrote: > Thomas Fitzsimmons writes: > > Sander Hoentjen wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't > > > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? > > > > During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build > > requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was that > > packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on the base > > Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64) without requiring > > external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant packages had to run on > > ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9, IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter > > should suffice. So while ideally the package would build on both, > > pragmatically I'd say go ahead and build require IcedTea. > > I understand that, but it would surely be better in this case to get > the fix into libgcj. It's not particularly difficult to do, and > surely we can be allowed the short time it would take to get the fix > in, and then the package would run everywhere. Sure, it's tempting to > take the easy road, but in this case it's not hugely difficult to do > the right thing. Yes, I'm working on a fix for GNU Classpath. However, understand that it does take a non-trivial amount of time to get a libgcj fix into Fedora, through the GNU Classpath -> gcc HEAD -> Red Hat gcc branch -> Fedora Rawhide chain -- several days at a minimum. I'd rather not hold up Sander's progress waiting for the fix to land. Tom From ihok at hotmail.com Mon Nov 26 21:31:49 2007 From: ihok at hotmail.com (Jack Tanner) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:31:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [fedora-java] Re: eclipse and icedtea in f8 References: <20071121201254.GA12613@redhat.com> <1195676521.3683.3.camel@nirvana.limasoftware.net> <20071121204223.GA12736@redhat.com> Message-ID: Andrew Overholt writes: > Yeah, although your options are slightly different, eclipse.ini achieves > the same thing. The problem is that the defaults weren't being read > because they were in /usr/share/eclipse/eclipse.ini when they should > have been in /usr/lib{64}/eclipse/eclipse.ini. A forthcoming 3.3.1.1 > update will fix the defaults. Realistically speaking, is eclipse-3.3.1.1-10.fc9.src.rpm, which builds successfully on all arches, about to get tagged as an update (or update-testing) for F8? Or is some more work going to happen before an update is possible? From sander at hoentjen.eu Mon Nov 26 21:45:58 2007 From: sander at hoentjen.eu (Sander Hoentjen) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:45:58 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <474B27F3.3060100@redhat.com> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> <474B2370.20804@redhat.com> <18251.9676.718268.901369@zebedee.pink> <474B27F3.3060100@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1196113558.3485.6.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:09 -0500, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > Thomas Fitzsimmons writes: > > > Sander Hoentjen wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't > > > > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora? > > > > > > During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build > > > requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was that > > > packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on the base > > > Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64) without requiring > > > external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant packages had to run on > > > ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9, IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter > > > should suffice. So while ideally the package would build on both, > > > pragmatically I'd say go ahead and build require IcedTea. > > > > I understand that, but it would surely be better in this case to get > > the fix into libgcj. It's not particularly difficult to do, and > > surely we can be allowed the short time it would take to get the fix > > in, and then the package would run everywhere. Sure, it's tempting to > > take the easy road, but in this case it's not hugely difficult to do > > the right thing. > > Yes, I'm working on a fix for GNU Classpath. However, understand that it does > take a non-trivial amount of time to get a libgcj fix into Fedora, through the > GNU Classpath -> gcc HEAD -> Red Hat gcc branch -> Fedora Rawhide chain -- > several days at a minimum. I'd rather not hold up Sander's progress waiting for > the fix to land. > Thanks for your concern, but for me it is no problem. Tomorrow I will go ahead and submit the package for review. It will probably take some time before it is approved anyway. The question that remains is will this fix ever go into F8, if not I would still have a problem. I do like this solution better, so again I can be patient. Sander From overholt at redhat.com Tue Nov 27 00:33:26 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:33:26 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Re: eclipse and icedtea in f8 In-Reply-To: References: <20071121201254.GA12613@redhat.com> <1195676521.3683.3.camel@nirvana.limasoftware.net> <20071121204223.GA12736@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20071127003326.GA22286@redhat.com> * Jack Tanner [2007-11-26 16:34]: > Andrew Overholt writes: > > > Yeah, although your options are slightly different, eclipse.ini achieves > > the same thing. The problem is that the defaults weren't being read > > because they were in /usr/share/eclipse/eclipse.ini when they should > > have been in /usr/lib{64}/eclipse/eclipse.ini. A forthcoming 3.3.1.1 > > update will fix the defaults. > > Realistically speaking, is eclipse-3.3.1.1-10.fc9.src.rpm, which > builds successfully on all arches, about to get tagged as an update > (or update-testing) for F8? Or is some more work going to happen > before an update is possible? No, I just haven't gotten around to submitting the update :) 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 Nov 27 10:35:15 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:35:15 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <474B27F3.3060100@redhat.com> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> <474B2370.20804@redhat.com> <18251.9676.718268.901369@zebedee.pink> <474B27F3.3060100@redhat.com> Message-ID: <18251.62179.401233.391582@zebedee.pink> Thomas Fitzsimmons writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > Thomas Fitzsimmons writes: > > > Sander Hoentjen wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it > > > > doesn't compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this > > > > go into fedora? > > > > > > During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build > > > requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was > > > that packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on > > > the base Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64) > > > without requiring external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant > > > packages had to run on ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9, > > > IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter should suffice. So while > > > ideally the package would build on both, pragmatically I'd say > > > go ahead and build require IcedTea. > > > > I understand that, but it would surely be better in this case to get > > the fix into libgcj. It's not particularly difficult to do, and > > surely we can be allowed the short time it would take to get the fix > > in, and then the package would run everywhere. Sure, it's tempting to > > take the easy road, but in this case it's not hugely difficult to do > > the right thing. > > Yes, I'm working on a fix for GNU Classpath. However, understand > that it does take a non-trivial amount of time to get a libgcj fix > into Fedora, through the GNU Classpath -> gcc HEAD -> Red Hat gcc > branch -> Fedora Rawhide chain -- several days at a minimum. I'd > rather not hold up Sander's progress waiting for the fix to land. OK, that's fair, but it's going to be *really* easy to let things in Classpath slide. I am going to keep on top of this: apart from ppc issues, there are also the secondary architectures ARM, IA-64, and SPARC. I'd like to keep gcj going in good shape until we have a reasonable portability story for OpenJDK. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903 From neugens at limasoftware.net Tue Nov 27 12:31:04 2007 From: neugens at limasoftware.net (Mario Torre) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:31:04 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <18251.62179.401233.391582@zebedee.pink> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> <474B2370.20804@redhat.com> <18251.9676.718268.901369@zebedee.pink> <474B27F3.3060100@redhat.com> <18251.62179.401233.391582@zebedee.pink> Message-ID: <1196166664.4331.0.camel@nirvana.limasoftware.net> Il giorno mar, 27/11/2007 alle 10.35 +0000, Andrew Haley ha scritto: > OK, that's fair, but it's going to be *really* easy to let things in > Classpath slide. I am going to keep on top of this: apart from ppc > issues, there are also the secondary architectures ARM, IA-64, and > SPARC. I'd like to keep gcj going in good shape until we have a > reasonable portability story for OpenJDK. > > Andrew. +1 if that matter Mario -- Lima Software - http://www.limasoftware.net/ GNU Classpath Developer - http://www.classpath.org/ Fedora Ambassador - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MarioTorre Jabber: neugens at jabber.org pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Please, support open standards: http://opendocumentfellowship.org/petition/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Questa ? una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente URL: From aph at redhat.com Tue Nov 27 14:16:47 2007 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:16:47 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj In-Reply-To: <18251.62179.401233.391582@zebedee.pink> References: <1196001422.17800.24.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> <474B2370.20804@redhat.com> <18251.9676.718268.901369@zebedee.pink> <474B27F3.3060100@redhat.com> <18251.62179.401233.391582@zebedee.pink> Message-ID: <18252.9935.803861.84287@zebedee.pink> Andrew Haley writes: > OK, that's fair, but it's going to be *really* easy to let things in > Classpath slide. I am going to keep on top of this: apart from ppc > issues, there are also the secondary architectures ARM, IA-64, and > SPARC. I'd like to keep gcj going in good shape until we have a > reasonable portability story for OpenJDK. One small thing to add: I'm not really sure that a slow interpreter is all we need for secondary arches. For some things it'll be perfectly OK, but not for others. We'll have to wait and see what people need. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903 From ihok at hotmail.com Tue Nov 27 17:26:05 2007 From: ihok at hotmail.com (Jack Tanner) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:26:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [fedora-java] Re: eclipse and icedtea in f8 References: <20071121201254.GA12613@redhat.com> <1195676521.3683.3.camel@nirvana.limasoftware.net> <20071121204223.GA12736@redhat.com> <20071127003326.GA22286@redhat.com> Message-ID: Andrew Overholt writes: > * Jack Tanner [2007-11-26 16:34]: > > > > Realistically speaking, is eclipse-3.3.1.1-10.fc9.src.rpm, which > > builds successfully on all arches, about to get tagged as an update > > (or update-testing) for F8? Or is some more work going to happen > > before an update is possible? > > No, I just haven't gotten around to submitting the update :) Good luck with that. :) I tried to build from eclipse-3.3.1.1-10.fc9.src.rpm , but then it turned out that a not-yet-released icu4j-eclipse is a prerequisite. So, don't forget to tag that, too! From overholt at redhat.com Tue Nov 27 17:38:33 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:38:33 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Re: eclipse and icedtea in f8 In-Reply-To: References: <20071121201254.GA12613@redhat.com> <1195676521.3683.3.camel@nirvana.limasoftware.net> <20071121204223.GA12736@redhat.com> <20071127003326.GA22286@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20071127173833.GA10997@redhat.com> * Jack Tanner [2007-11-27 12:27]: > Andrew Overholt writes: > > > * Jack Tanner [2007-11-26 16:34]: > > > > > > Realistically speaking, is eclipse-3.3.1.1-10.fc9.src.rpm, which > > > builds successfully on all arches, about to get tagged as an update > > > (or update-testing) for F8? Or is some more work going to happen > > > before an update is possible? > > > > No, I just haven't gotten around to submitting the update :) > > Good luck with that. :) > > I tried to build from eclipse-3.3.1.1-10.fc9.src.rpm , but then it turned out > that a not-yet-released icu4j-eclipse is a prerequisite. So, don't forget to tag > that, too! Thanks for the reminder :) The updated icu4j should be in rawhide, no? Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fitzsim at redhat.com Wed Nov 28 06:53:54 2007 From: fitzsim at redhat.com (Thomas Fitzsimmons) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:53:54 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] [Fwd: fop built] Message-ID: <474D1082.8040809@redhat.com> Hi Karsten, Good news: we've finally got Apache FOP and all its dependencies in Rawhide. We're testing building the GNOME HIG 2.0 document now -- there are some wrinkles to iron out, but I wanted to let you know right away in case you wanted to run some smoke tests of your own. Tom -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Lillian Angel Subject: fop built Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:51:16 -0500 Size: 909 URL: From sander at hoentjen.eu Wed Nov 28 14:12:32 2007 From: sander at hoentjen.eu (Sander Hoentjen) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:12:32 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Newbie java packaging questions Message-ID: <1196259152.1109.20.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> Hi all, I started my attempt at packaging josm. I have some question about it, I hope someone here can help me out. For compiling should I use ant or javac? Using ant gives me a .jar file, if I compile that to binary format with gcj, how can I start it? Is it preferred to have a jar file or to have the files separate? Kind regards, Sander From langel at redhat.com Wed Nov 28 20:06:07 2007 From: langel at redhat.com (Lillian Angel) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:06:07 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] [Fwd: fop built] In-Reply-To: <474D1082.8040809@redhat.com> References: <474D1082.8040809@redhat.com> Message-ID: <474DCA2F.10802@redhat.com> Hi, I reported it here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500281 with an explanation and a patch. I, also, uploaded the PDFs created with fop-0.20.5 and fop-0.94- there is no difference. Lillian Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote: > Hi Karsten, > > Good news: we've finally got Apache FOP and all its dependencies in > Rawhide. We're testing building the GNOME HIG 2.0 document now -- there > are some wrinkles to iron out, but I wanted to let you know right away > in case you wanted to run some smoke tests of your own. > > Tom > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > fop built > From: > Lillian Angel > Date: > Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:51:16 -0500 > To: > Thomas Fitzsimmons > > To: > Thomas Fitzsimmons > > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=25759 > > :) worked with java-1.5.0-gcj > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > fedora-devel-java-list mailing list > fedora-devel-java-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list From fitzsim at redhat.com Thu Nov 29 06:35:33 2007 From: fitzsim at redhat.com (Thomas Fitzsimmons) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:35:33 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Newbie java packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1196259152.1109.20.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> References: <1196259152.1109.20.camel@peecee.hoentjen.eu> Message-ID: <474E5DB5.30409@redhat.com> Sander Hoentjen wrote: > Hi all, > > I started my attempt at packaging josm. I have some question about it, I > hope someone here can help me out. > For compiling should I use ant or javac? Using ant gives me a .jar file, Build however the upstream project builds. > if I compile that to binary format with gcj, how can I start it? For simplicity, build against IcedTea first. Then if you're intent on native compilation, have a look here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NativeJava > Is it preferred to have a jar file or to have the files separate? A jar is preferred. Tom