From ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net Wed Dec 9 20:30:31 2009 From: ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net (Aaron Clark) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:30:31 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Why does ant ignore tasks in ~/.ant/lib ? Message-ID: <4B2008E7.5080005@ophidian.homeip.net> So, I've been trying to track down why a simple taskdef in my build.xml fails to find the correct properties file when I don't have ANT_HOME set for my user. Here's the setup: 1. svnant.jar and svnClientAdapter.jar are both placed in $HOME/.ant/lib 2. I run the attached build.xml Without ANT_HOME variable set, I get the error message: "[taskdef] Could not load definitions from resource svntask.properties. It could not be found." Setting ANT_HOME to /usr/share/ant yields no error messages. In both cases I can clearly see the jars in my home directory on the classpath. I'm guessing it is some kind of classloader snafu. Does anyone have suggestions or insight? (besides the obvious case of setting ANT_HOME in my .bashrc) Thanks, Aaron (Versions... OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea6 1.6) (fedora-33.b16.fc12-i386) OpenJDK Client VM (build 14.0-b16, mixed mode) Ant version: ant-1.7.1-12.fc12.i686 ) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: build.xml Type: text/xml Size: 259 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net Tue Dec 15 19:29:36 2009 From: ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net (Aaron Clark) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:29:36 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] Why does ant ignore tasks in ~/.ant/lib ? In-Reply-To: <4B2008E7.5080005@ophidian.homeip.net> References: <4B2008E7.5080005@ophidian.homeip.net> Message-ID: <4B27E3A0.1040101@ophidian.homeip.net> On 12/09/2009 03:30 PM, Aaron Clark wrote: > So, I've been trying to track down why a simple taskdef in my build.xml > fails to find the correct properties file when I don't have ANT_HOME set > for my user. > > Here's the setup: > 1. svnant.jar and svnClientAdapter.jar are both placed in $HOME/.ant/lib > 2. I run the attached build.xml > > Without ANT_HOME variable set, I get the error message: > "[taskdef] Could not load definitions from resource svntask.properties. > It could not be found." > > Setting ANT_HOME to /usr/share/ant yields no error messages. > As a followup to this, "ANT_HOME=/usr/share/ant/ ant" works without errors, but "ANT_HOME=/usr/share/ant ant" triggers the error. The former case has a significantly shorter classpath output (missing a lot of jars from /usr/share/java/) and somewhat interestingly begins with /usr/share/ant//lib/ant-launcher.jar followed by the jars in $HOME/.ant/lib/ Can anyone else reproduce this? Aaron From ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net Mon Dec 28 00:22:06 2009 From: ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net (Aaron Clark) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:22:06 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] What is the current Fedora / JPackage relationship? Message-ID: <4B37FA2E.4090207@ophidian.homeip.net> I've been looking to package up some java web frameworks and tools, but I've run into the issue of the fedora versions of some components being practically ancient, e.g. jakarta-commons-fileupload. Now, this package was originally forked from JPackage, but appears to have stagnated in Fedora as opposed to JPackage which has continued on and has an up-to-date version in their repository. What is the general guidance for java packages on Fedora? Should a java user/developer go to JPackage for all their java needs (a la RPMFusion for your binary graphics drivers and patent encumbered codecs), or should Fedora itself be packaging everything that is needed? Do any Fedora packages also contribute to JPackage? Furthermore, for the more pressing issue of severely outdated dependencies, should we be rebasing to the current JPackage, updating the existing specs, or creating new, modernized specs to update the packages? Thanks, Aaron From green at redhat.com Mon Dec 28 03:19:32 2009 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:19:32 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] What is the current Fedora / JPackage relationship? In-Reply-To: <4B37FA2E.4090207@ophidian.homeip.net> References: <4B37FA2E.4090207@ophidian.homeip.net> Message-ID: <4B3823C4.2090805@redhat.com> On 12/27/2009 07:22 PM, Aaron Clark wrote: > I've been looking to package up some java web frameworks and tools, > but I've run into the issue of the fedora versions of some components > being practically ancient, e.g. jakarta-commons-fileupload. Now, this > package was originally forked from JPackage, but appears to have > stagnated in Fedora as opposed to JPackage which has continued on and > has an up-to-date version in their repository. File a bug in Fedora's bugzilla against the outdated package asking the maintainer to upgrade. You will usually see prompt action. AG From akurtako at redhat.com Mon Dec 28 07:19:16 2009 From: akurtako at redhat.com (Alexander Kurtakov) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:19:16 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] What is the current Fedora / JPackage relationship? In-Reply-To: <4B37FA2E.4090207@ophidian.homeip.net> References: <4B37FA2E.4090207@ophidian.homeip.net> Message-ID: <200912280919.16688.akurtako@redhat.com> > I've been looking to package up some java web frameworks and tools, but > I've run into the issue of the fedora versions of some components being > practically ancient, e.g. jakarta-commons-fileupload. Now, this package > was originally forked from JPackage, but appears to have stagnated in > Fedora as opposed to JPackage which has continued on and has an > up-to-date version in their repository. > > What is the general guidance for java packages on Fedora? Should a java > user/developer go to JPackage for all their java needs (a la RPMFusion > for your binary graphics drivers and patent encumbered codecs), or > should Fedora itself be packaging everything that is needed? Do any > Fedora packages also contribute to JPackage? Furthermore, for the more > pressing issue of severely outdated dependencies, should we be rebasing > to the current JPackage, updating the existing specs, or creating new, > modernized specs to update the packages? I would say that most of the active Java Fedora packagers have the same relationship with JPackage as with Debian - we just take what/when/if we need and let other maintainers do the same when we are better. Java packages in Fedora has grown to a big number but in a different direction - JPackage is working more on server-side things while work in Fedora is more for end-users/developers e.g. Eclipse, Netbeans, OOo, IntelliJ Idea (Fedora 13 feature) and KDE/Nepomuk/Soprano integration (slowly advancing ). NOTE to all Eclipse users: If you install some/any of the Eclipse dependencies from JPackage it is almost sure that this will break your Eclipse environment due to missing OSGi metadata in JPackage rpms. Regards, Alex > > Thanks, > Aaron > > -- > fedora-devel-java-list mailing list > fedora-devel-java-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list > From mefoster at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 10:37:35 2009 From: mefoster at gmail.com (Mary Ellen Foster) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:37:35 +0000 Subject: [fedora-java] What is the current Fedora / JPackage relationship? In-Reply-To: <4B3823C4.2090805@redhat.com> References: <4B37FA2E.4090207@ophidian.homeip.net> <4B3823C4.2090805@redhat.com> Message-ID: 2009/12/28 Anthony Green : > On 12/27/2009 07:22 PM, Aaron Clark wrote: >> >> I've been looking to package up some java web frameworks and tools, but >> I've run into the issue of the fedora versions of some components being >> practically ancient, e.g. jakarta-commons-fileupload. ?Now, this package was >> originally forked from JPackage, but appears to have stagnated in Fedora as >> opposed to JPackage which has continued on and has an up-to-date version in >> their repository. > > File a bug in Fedora's bugzilla against the outdated package asking the > maintainer to upgrade. ? You will usually see prompt action. Yeah, well, sometimes ... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543446 MEF -- Mary Ellen Foster -- http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/ Interaction Lab -- http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/InteractionLab School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278 From orion at cora.nwra.com Tue Dec 29 17:43:07 2009 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:43:07 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] ivy Message-ID: <4B3A3FAB.10305@cora.nwra.com> Has anyone dealt with any projects that use ivy? Appears to be similar to maven and downloads jars automatically, so it's probably going to need similar treatment to maven in the build system. -- 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 ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net Tue Dec 29 17:50:28 2009 From: ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net (Aaron Clark) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:50:28 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] What is the current Fedora / JPackage relationship? In-Reply-To: References: <4B37FA2E.4090207@ophidian.homeip.net> <4B3823C4.2090805@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4B3A4164.5020303@ophidian.homeip.net> On 12/28/2009 05:37 AM, Mary Ellen Foster wrote: >> File a bug in Fedora's bugzilla against the outdated package asking the >> maintainer to upgrade. You will usually see prompt action. > > Yeah, well, sometimes ... > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543446 > Yes, I saw this amongst your review requests (which I found very helpful as reference material). There's no Java SIG, but is there a wiki page tracking which common packages (like Jakarta Commons) need version bumps or packaging? Kind of like a java packaging wishlist? Aaron From ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net Tue Dec 29 17:56:38 2009 From: ophidian at ophidian.homeip.net (Aaron Clark) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:56:38 -0500 Subject: [fedora-java] What is the current Fedora / JPackage relationship? In-Reply-To: <200912280919.16688.akurtako@redhat.com> References: <4B37FA2E.4090207@ophidian.homeip.net> <200912280919.16688.akurtako@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4B3A42D6.2080906@ophidian.homeip.net> On 12/28/2009 02:19 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: >> >> What is the general guidance for java packages on Fedora? Should a java >> user/developer go to JPackage for all their java needs (a la RPMFusion >> for your binary graphics drivers and patent encumbered codecs), or >> should Fedora itself be packaging everything that is needed? Do any >> Fedora packages also contribute to JPackage? Furthermore, for the more >> pressing issue of severely outdated dependencies, should we be rebasing >> to the current JPackage, updating the existing specs, or creating new, >> modernized specs to update the packages? > I would say that most of the active Java Fedora packagers have the same > relationship with JPackage as with Debian - we just take what/when/if we need > and let other maintainers do the same when we are better. Thanks for clearing that up. I was confused by some of the wiki pages as to whether the approach was to get whatever people want/need into Fedora or as a default point them to JPackage. > Java packages in Fedora has grown to a big number but in a different direction > - JPackage is working more on server-side things while work in Fedora is more > for end-users/developers e.g. Eclipse, Netbeans, OOo, IntelliJ Idea (Fedora 13 > feature) and KDE/Nepomuk/Soprano integration (slowly advancing > ). I guess that leads to the next question (which may be best for another thread)... Do we want to package up libraries as a supporting item to the Java development tools we currently ship? How far down the road of serverside java development/deployment do we want to go? Aaron From akurtako at redhat.com Wed Dec 30 15:40:45 2009 From: akurtako at redhat.com (Alexander Kurtakov) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:40:45 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] =?iso-8859-1?q?What_is_the_current_Fedora_/_JPackag?= =?iso-8859-1?q?e=09relationship=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4B3A42D6.2080906@ophidian.homeip.net> References: <4B37FA2E.4090207@ophidian.homeip.net> <200912280919.16688.akurtako@redhat.com> <4B3A42D6.2080906@ophidian.homeip.net> Message-ID: <200912301740.46293.akurtako@redhat.com> > I guess that leads to the next question (which may be best for another > thread)... Do we want to package up libraries as a supporting item to > the Java development tools we currently ship? How far down the road of > serverside java development/deployment do we want to go? This is an easy question with simple answer: We want to go as far as there are volunteers ready to work on given products/topics and etc. :) Alex > > Aaron >