From dant at cdkkt.com Fri May 1 18:03:07 2009 From: dant at cdkkt.com (Daniel B. Thurman) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 11:03:07 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? Message-ID: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> I have checked out my svn installation and I am able to access it via my webpage, and then proceeded to add the URI to the Eclipse SVN Repository plugin (not Team), and was left with this error: ========================================= SVN: '0x00400006: Validate Repository Location' operation finished with error: Selected SVN connector library is not available or cannot be loaded. If you selected native JavaHL connector, please check if binaries are available or install and select pure Java Subversion connector from the plug-in connectors update site. If connectors already installed then you can change the selected one at: Window->Preferences->Team->SVN->SVN Client. Selected SVN connector library is not available or cannot be loaded. If you selected native JavaHL connector, please check if binaries are available or install and select pure Java Subversion connector from the plug-in connectors update site. If connectors already installed then you can change the selected one at: Window->Preferences->Team->SVN->SVN Client. How can I resolve this problem? From overholt at redhat.com Fri May 1 18:55:44 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 14:55:44 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? In-Reply-To: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> References: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> Message-ID: <20090501185544.GA15680@redhat.com> Instead, try: yum install eclipse-subclipse Andrew From dant at cdkkt.com Fri May 1 20:08:46 2009 From: dant at cdkkt.com (Daniel B. Thurman) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 13:08:46 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? In-Reply-To: <20090501185544.GA15680@redhat.com> References: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> <20090501185544.GA15680@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49FB56CE.9090805@cdkkt.com> Andrew Overholt wrote: > Instead, try: > > yum install eclipse-subclipse > > Andrew > Package eclipse-subclipse-1.2.4-11.fc9.i386 already installed and latest version Nothing to do From overholt at redhat.com Fri May 1 20:11:53 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 16:11:53 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? In-Reply-To: <49FB56CE.9090805@cdkkt.com> References: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> <20090501185544.GA15680@redhat.com> <49FB56CE.9090805@cdkkt.com> Message-ID: <20090501201153.GH16105@redhat.com> * Daniel B. Thurman [2009-05-01 16:09]: > Andrew Overholt wrote: >> yum install eclipse-subclipse >> > Package eclipse-subclipse-1.2.4-11.fc9.i386 already installed and latest > version > Nothing to do Did you try using it? Andrew From dant at cdkkt.com Fri May 1 20:23:21 2009 From: dant at cdkkt.com (Daniel B. Thurman) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 13:23:21 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? In-Reply-To: <20090501201153.GH16105@redhat.com> References: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> <20090501185544.GA15680@redhat.com> <49FB56CE.9090805@cdkkt.com> <20090501201153.GH16105@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49FB5A39.2080607@cdkkt.com> Andrew Overholt wrote: > > * Daniel B. Thurman [2009-05-01 16:09]: > > Andrew Overholt wrote: > >> yum install eclipse-subclipse > >> > > Package eclipse-subclipse-1.2.4-11.fc9.i386 already installed and > latest > > version > > Nothing to do > > Did you try using it? > > Andrew > How can I tell? I am using the "Subversion Repository Exploring Perspective" tab, clicked New, added the URI, Username, Password which is what gave me the error. I have looked at the "Team Synchronizing Persepective" and there was nothing there I could that I could find related to SVN. The "Synchronize" left pane was empty, the "Task Repositories" left pane had only "Local" and "Eclipse.org", both containing "Bugzilla", "JIRA", and "Trac" It is quite possible that the problems are in regards to my local SVN server setup, so I wonder if there is a test working SVN I could try to remove that possibility out of the loop? I could not get Netbeans nor Eclipse to work at least with my own SVN server, so that is a distinct possibility. From dant at cdkkt.com Fri May 1 20:48:24 2009 From: dant at cdkkt.com (Daniel B. Thurman) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 13:48:24 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? In-Reply-To: <49FB5A39.2080607@cdkkt.com> References: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> <20090501185544.GA15680@redhat.com><49FB56CE.9090805@cdkkt.com> <20090501201153.GH16105@redhat.com> <49FB5A39.2080607@cdkkt.com> Message-ID: <49FB6018.7080708@cdkkt.com> Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > > Andrew Overholt wrote: > > > > * Daniel B. Thurman [2009-05-01 16:09]: > > > Andrew Overholt wrote: > > >> yum install eclipse-subclipse > > >> > > > Package eclipse-subclipse-1.2.4-11.fc9.i386 already installed and > > latest > > > version > > > Nothing to do > > > > Did you try using it? > > > > Andrew > > > How can I tell? I am using the "Subversion Repository Exploring > Perspective" > tab, clicked New, added the URI, Username, Password which is what > gave me the error. I have looked at the "Team Synchronizing Persepective" > and there was nothing there I could that I could find related to SVN. The > "Synchronize" left pane was empty, the "Task Repositories" left pane > had only "Local" and "Eclipse.org", both containing "Bugzilla", "JIRA", > and "Trac" > > It is quite possible that the problems are in regards to my local SVN > server setup, so I wonder if there is a test working SVN I could try > to remove that possibility out of the loop? > > I could not get Netbeans nor Eclipse to work at least with my own > SVN server, so that is a distinct possibility. > > -- > fedora-devel-java-list mailing list > fedora-devel-java-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list > OK, I found a SVN repository to test against: http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn I tried the URI in a web browser and it works. I could not get the URI to work using Eclipse nor Netbeans. From dant at cdkkt.com Fri May 1 21:20:02 2009 From: dant at cdkkt.com (Daniel B. Thurman) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:20:02 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] F10: Eclipse SVN Subversion does not seem to have authorization (user/pass) support? Message-ID: <49FB6782.9010306@cdkkt.com> F10 seems to be running Eclipse v3.4.1, and to my surprise, SVN Repository Perspective does not seem to have the authorization entries for those who need it? I have no place to enter the name and password in order to open my repository! From overholt at redhat.com Sat May 2 18:55:51 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? In-Reply-To: <49FB6018.7080708@cdkkt.com> References: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> <20090501201153.GH16105@redhat.com> <49FB5A39.2080607@cdkkt.com> <49FB6018.7080708@cdkkt.com> Message-ID: <20090502185550.GA4305@redhat.com> * Daniel B. Thurman [2009-05-01 16:49]: > http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn Works for me with: eclipse-subclipse-1.4.7-3.fc11.noarch See this URL for proof: http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/svn.png Andrew From overholt at redhat.com Sat May 2 18:57:47 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:57:47 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] F10: Eclipse SVN Subversion does not seem to have authorization (user/pass) support? In-Reply-To: <49FB6782.9010306@cdkkt.com> References: <49FB6782.9010306@cdkkt.com> Message-ID: <20090502185746.GB4305@redhat.com> * Daniel B. Thurman [2009-05-01 17:20]: > > F10 seems to be running Eclipse v3.4.1, and to my surprise, > SVN Repository Perspective does not seem to have the > authorization entries for those who need it? I have no > place to enter the name and password in order to open > my repository! I think this URL may be of help: http://osdir.com/ml/version-control.subversion.subclipse.user/2006-06/msg00207.html Andrew From robert at marcanoonline.com Sat May 2 19:29:53 2009 From: robert at marcanoonline.com (Robert Marcano) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:59:53 -0430 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? In-Reply-To: <20090502185550.GA4305@redhat.com> References: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> <20090501201153.GH16105@redhat.com> <49FB5A39.2080607@cdkkt.com> <49FB6018.7080708@cdkkt.com> <20090502185550.GA4305@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Andrew Overholt wrote: > * Daniel B. Thurman [2009-05-01 16:49]: > > http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn > > Works for me with: > > eclipse-subclipse-1.4.7-3.fc11.noarch > > See this URL for proof: > > http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/svn.png > I just pushed the 1.4.7 from the updates-testing repo to updates for F-10. I really forgot about that, sorry everyone :-( -- Robert Marcano -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dant at cdkkt.com Sat May 2 21:32:20 2009 From: dant at cdkkt.com (Daniel B. Thurman) Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 14:32:20 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? In-Reply-To: <20090502185550.GA4305@redhat.com> References: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> <20090501201153.GH16105@redhat.com> <49FB5A39.2080607@cdkkt.com> <49FB6018.7080708@cdkkt.com> <20090502185550.GA4305@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49FCBBE4.4050509@cdkkt.com> Andrew Overholt wrote: > * Daniel B. Thurman [2009-05-01 16:49]: > >> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn >> > > Works for me with: > eclipse-subclipse-1.4.7-3.fc11.noarch > > See this URL for proof: > http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/svn.png > > Andrew > OK, I have been able to get svn to work on Internet sites but not my svn server, so clearly, the problem is apache. Here are some of the problems that I am seeing: 1) Command line: $ svn list svn://gold/svn3 [works locally and remotely] branches/ tags/ trunk/ $ svn info http://gold/svn3 [Same error appears on local and remote systems] svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/svn3' svn: PROPFIND of '/svn3': 403 Forbidden (http://gold) From: /var/log/httpd/error_log: [ a TON of the following appeared in the log, so I took the last line] [Sat May 02 17:15:12 2009] [error] [client 10.1.0.5] ModSecurity: Warning. Match of "rx ^((?:(?:POS|GE)T|OPTIONS|HEAD))$" against "REQUEST_METHOD" required. [file "/etc/httpd/modsecurity.d/modsecurity_crs_30_http_policy.conf"] [line "35"] [id "960032"] [msg "Method is not allowed by policy"] [severity "CRITICAL"] [tag "POLICY/METHOD_NOT_ALLOWED"] [hostname "gold"] [uri "/svn3/!svn/bln/2"] [unique_id "Sfy34AoBAAgAAD1U3zIAAAAB"] [Sat May 02 17:15:12 2009] [error] [client 10.1.0.5] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/html/svn3 It seems that apache is not allowing access via mod_security or is it something else? 2) Eclipse: (and similar with Netbeans) SVN URI: svn://gold/svn3 [works locally and remotely] branches/ tags/ trunk/ SVN URI: http://gold/svn3 Console: RA layer request failed svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/svn3' svn: PROPFIND of '/svn3': 403 Forbidden (http://gold) But what is odd here is that I can access svn (http) via my web-browser both locally and remotely, just that I cannot get svn to work via the svn (http) command line nor via svn (http) clients (on Fedora/Win2000) Clearly, there is a problem with the way I have apache (mis)configured... any idea where I can look to resolve this? Thanks! Dan From dant at cdkkt.com Sat May 2 22:07:38 2009 From: dant at cdkkt.com (Daniel B. Thurman) Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 15:07:38 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] F9: Eclipse plug: Subversive SVN does not work? In-Reply-To: <49FCBBE4.4050509@cdkkt.com> References: <49FB395B.90606@cdkkt.com> <20090501201153.GH16105@redhat.com> <49FB5A39.2080607@cdkkt.com> <49FB6018.7080708@cdkkt.com> <20090502185550.GA4305@redhat.com> <49FCBBE4.4050509@cdkkt.com> Message-ID: <49FCC42A.7040308@cdkkt.com> Daniel B. Thurman wrote: > Andrew Overholt wrote: >> * Daniel B. Thurman [2009-05-01 16:49]: >> >>> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn >>> >> >> Works for me with: >> eclipse-subclipse-1.4.7-3.fc11.noarch >> >> See this URL for proof: >> http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/svn.png >> >> Andrew >> > OK, I have been able to get svn to work on Internet sites > but not my svn server, so clearly, the problem is apache. > > Here are some of the problems that I am seeing: > > 1) Command line: > > $ svn list svn://gold/svn3 [works locally and remotely] > branches/ > tags/ > trunk/ > > $ svn info http://gold/svn3 [Same error appears on local and remote > systems] > svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/svn3' > svn: PROPFIND of '/svn3': 403 Forbidden (http://gold) > > From: /var/log/httpd/error_log: > [ a TON of the following appeared in the log, so I took the last line] > [Sat May 02 17:15:12 2009] [error] [client 10.1.0.5] ModSecurity: > Warning. Match of "rx ^((?:(?:POS|GE)T|OPTIONS|HEAD))$" against > "REQUEST_METHOD" required. [file > "/etc/httpd/modsecurity.d/modsecurity_crs_30_http_policy.conf"] [line > "35"] [id "960032"] [msg "Method is not allowed by policy"] [severity > "CRITICAL"] [tag "POLICY/METHOD_NOT_ALLOWED"] [hostname "gold"] [uri > "/svn3/!svn/bln/2"] [unique_id "Sfy34AoBAAgAAD1U3zIAAAAB"] > [Sat May 02 17:15:12 2009] [error] [client 10.1.0.5] client denied by > server configuration: /var/www/html/svn3 > > It seems that apache is not allowing access via mod_security or is > it something else? > > 2) Eclipse: (and similar with Netbeans) > > SVN URI: svn://gold/svn3 [works locally and remotely] > branches/ > tags/ > trunk/ > > SVN URI: http://gold/svn3 > Console: > RA layer request failed > svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/svn3' > svn: PROPFIND of '/svn3': 403 Forbidden (http://gold) > > But what is odd here is that I can access svn (http) via my web-browser > both locally and remotely, just that I cannot get svn to work via the > svn (http) command line nor via svn (http) clients (on Fedora/Win2000) > > Clearly, there is a problem with the way I have apache > (mis)configured... any idea where I can look to resolve this? > > Thanks! > Dan > > -- > fedora-devel-java-list mailing list > fedora-devel-java-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list Please notice: [Sat May 02 17:15:12 2009] [error] [client 10.1.0.5] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/html/svn3 I cannot understand the: "/var/www/html" entry since my SVNParentPath is /svn/repos and this should be the actual parent path, and not /var/www or /var/www/html path? In my /etc/httpd/conf.d/subversion.conf file, I have: DAV svn SVNParentPath /svn/repos So why is apache/subversion trying to locate " /var/www/html/svn3", not finding it, will report the error? Dan From choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de Mon May 4 21:12:39 2009 From: choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de (Christoph =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F6ger?=) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 23:12:39 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] OT: java question: CharSequence from file Message-ID: <1241471559.3682.10.camel@choeger6> Hi guys, I need to lex a textfile as fast as possible(TM) by using a set of regex patterns. Pattern expects a CharSequence as input. I used to read the input file into a StringBuffer completely and than start lexing (cutting of the part that matches in every step). This is not very effective from both the memory and runtime perspective. (ok, not so much runtime, since you _have_ to read every char anyway). Today I just searched for some kind of delayed Buffer that would take the input from the reader on demand or even do it in a parallel thread. Is there any such thing out there yet? thanks christoph -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From robert at marcanoonline.com Mon May 4 21:42:16 2009 From: robert at marcanoonline.com (Robert Marcano) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 17:12:16 -0430 Subject: [fedora-java] OT: java question: CharSequence from file In-Reply-To: <1241471559.3682.10.camel@choeger6> References: <1241471559.3682.10.camel@choeger6> Message-ID: <1241473336.3748.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 23:12 +0200, Christoph H?ger wrote: > Hi guys, > > I need to lex a textfile as fast as possible(TM) by using a set of regex > patterns. > > Pattern expects a CharSequence as input. I used to read the input file > into a StringBuffer completely and than start lexing (cutting of the > part that matches in every step). > > This is not very effective from both the memory and runtime perspective. > (ok, not so much runtime, since you _have_ to read every char anyway). > > Today I just searched for some kind of delayed Buffer that would take > the input from the reader on demand or even do it in a parallel thread. > > Is there any such thing out there yet? Check NIO http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/nio/CharBuffer.html > > thanks > > christoph > -- > fedora-devel-java-list mailing list > fedora-devel-java-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list From skasal at redhat.com Tue May 5 10:58:20 2009 From: skasal at redhat.com (Stepan Kasal) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:58:20 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? Message-ID: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> Hello, I noticed that "BuildRequire: java-devel" is interpreted differently on different architectures. Namely, it evaluates java-1.5.0-gcj-devel on ppc{,64} and x86_64 but to java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel on i586. I observed this in rawhide koji. This inconsistency brings various problems, like totally different documentations builds between i586 and x86_64 (javadoc vs. sinjdoc) or arch-dependent bugs, e.g., jni.h not found on i586 (#498964). What's the intended default and who is the guilty one here? Regards, Stepan From choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de Tue May 5 11:51:45 2009 From: choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de (Christoph =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F6ger?=) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 13:51:45 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] OT: java question: CharSequence from file In-Reply-To: <1241473336.3748.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1241471559.3682.10.camel@choeger6> <1241473336.3748.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1241524305.3682.12.camel@choeger6> I tried to use that fragment (after realizing that parallel reading won't work because of length() function in CharSequence), but this is _extremely_ slow for larger (>100k) files. Any ideas why? StringBuffer inputSequence = new StringBuffer(); Charset charset = Charset.defaultCharset(); ByteBuffer byteBuffer = ByteBuffer.allocateDirect(8192); while (channel.read(byteBuffer) != -1) { byteBuffer.flip(); CharBuffer charBuffer = charset.decode(byteBuffer); inputSequence.append(charBuffer); byteBuffer.clear(); } -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From aph at redhat.com Tue May 5 14:51:07 2009 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 15:51:07 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> Stepan Kasal wrote: > I noticed that "BuildRequire: java-devel" is interpreted > differently on different architectures. Namely, it evaluates > java-1.5.0-gcj-devel on ppc{,64} and x86_64 but to > java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel on i586. > I observed this in rawhide koji. > > This inconsistency brings various problems, like totally different > documentations builds between i586 and x86_64 (javadoc vs. sinjdoc) > or arch-dependent bugs, e.g., jni.h not found on i586 (#498964). This isn't really a bug. If the package requires jni.h then it'll be in /usr/lib/jvm/java/include, regardless of gcj or openjdk. > What's the intended default and who is the guilty one here? Packages should generally be buildable on both. If they're not, they can be marked, e.g. as dependent on openjdk. The best defaults for koji are probably gcj on non-x86 machines and openjdk on x86 machines. openjdk does work on PPC, but it is very slow and will lead to much greater load on the PPC build boxes. Andrew. From loganjerry at gmail.com Tue May 5 14:56:22 2009 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 08:56:22 -0600 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> Message-ID: <870180fe0905050756o7d3743c4k63fcae84f351ac6c@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Packages should generally be buildable on both. ?If they're not, they > can be marked, e.g. as dependent on openjdk. I've had to do this for a couple of my packages that build fine with gcj, but whose documentation is not produced in an acceptable manner by sinjdoc. It doesn't handle javadocs for annotation definitions, for one thing. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ From aph at redhat.com Tue May 5 14:58:17 2009 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 15:58:17 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <870180fe0905050756o7d3743c4k63fcae84f351ac6c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <870180fe0905050756o7d3743c4k63fcae84f351ac6c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A005409.7050108@redhat.com> Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Packages should generally be buildable on both. If they're not, they >> can be marked, e.g. as dependent on openjdk. > > I've had to do this for a couple of my packages that build fine with > gcj, but whose documentation is not produced in an acceptable manner > by sinjdoc. It doesn't handle javadocs for annotation definitions, > for one thing. Yes, sinjdoc is rather old. If it doesn't do the job, then you'll have to mark your package as dependent on openjdk. Andrew. From overholt at redhat.com Tue May 5 15:13:55 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:13:55 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> * Andrew Haley [2009-05-05 10:51]: > The best defaults for koji are probably gcj on non-x86 machines and > openjdk on x86 machines. If I say "yum install java-devel" what gets installed? How is it determined? Andrew From ahughes at redhat.com Tue May 5 15:27:08 2009 From: ahughes at redhat.com (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 16:27:08 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <4A005409.7050108@redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <870180fe0905050756o7d3743c4k63fcae84f351ac6c@mail.gmail.com> <4A005409.7050108@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090505151650.GA2365@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> On 15:58 Tue 05 May , Andrew Haley wrote: > Jerry James wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Packages should generally be buildable on both. If they're not, they > >> can be marked, e.g. as dependent on openjdk. > > > > I've had to do this for a couple of my packages that build fine with > > gcj, but whose documentation is not produced in an acceptable manner > > by sinjdoc. It doesn't handle javadocs for annotation definitions, > > for one thing. > > Yes, sinjdoc is rather old. If it doesn't do the job, then you'll have > to mark your package as dependent on openjdk. > > Andrew. > > -- > fedora-devel-java-list mailing list > fedora-devel-java-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list Apologies for the off-topic question, but why is sinjdoc being used rather than gjdoc? Neither are preferable over javadoc if available, but gjdoc is at least known to be able to build the GNU Classpath documentation and is maintained (now as part of gcj). FWIW, in theory, there's actually no reason the langtools (tools.jar) from OpenJDK couldn't be provided for archs using gcj. I've certainly run the tools on Classpath VMs in the past. -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint = F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From overholt at redhat.com Tue May 5 15:29:46 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:29:46 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090505151650.GA2365@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <870180fe0905050756o7d3743c4k63fcae84f351ac6c@mail.gmail.com> <4A005409.7050108@redhat.com> <20090505151650.GA2365@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> Message-ID: <20090505152945.GA30398@redhat.com> * Andrew John Hughes [2009-05-05 11:27]: > Apologies for the off-topic question, but why is sinjdoc being used rather > than gjdoc? It was originally chosen because it could do annotations, etc. that gjdoc couldn't. Andrew From aph at redhat.com Tue May 5 15:31:58 2009 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 16:31:58 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090505151650.GA2365@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <870180fe0905050756o7d3743c4k63fcae84f351ac6c@mail.gmail.com> <4A005409.7050108@redhat.com> <20090505151650.GA2365@rivendell.middle-earth.co.uk> Message-ID: <4A005BEE.9020408@redhat.com> Andrew John Hughes wrote: > FWIW, in theory, there's actually no reason the langtools (tools.jar) > from OpenJDK couldn't be provided for archs using gcj. I've certainly > run the tools on Classpath VMs in the past. True, but it would be significant effort to create such a hybrid, and I don't think that anyone will be madly keen to do the work. Andrew. From notting at redhat.com Tue May 5 17:43:59 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:43:59 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Andrew Overholt (overholt at redhat.com) said: > * Andrew Haley [2009-05-05 10:51]: > > The best defaults for koji are probably gcj on non-x86 machines and > > openjdk on x86 machines. > > If I say "yum install java-devel" what gets installed? How is it > determined? Via the comps file. The current java development group is attached. By default, installing the group gets you the 'mandatory' and 'default' packages. The comps file does not have arch-specific bits, so doing gcj on non-x86 and openjdk on x86 isn't really practical, without a lot of metapackages. Bill From fitzsim at fitzsim.org Tue May 5 17:18:15 2009 From: fitzsim at fitzsim.org (Thomas Fitzsimmons) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 13:18:15 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] Re: The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> (Stepan Kasal's message of "Tue, 5 May 2009 12:58:20 +0200") References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> Message-ID: Hi Stepan, Stepan Kasal writes: > Hello, > I noticed that "BuildRequire: java-devel" is interpreted > differently on different architectures. Namely, it evaluates > java-1.5.0-gcj-devel on ppc{,64} and x86_64 but to > java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel on i586. > I observed this in rawhide koji. This is not the behavior I would expect from koji. Since java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel is available on ppc, ppc64 and x86_64, and provides java-devel = 1:1.6.0, it should win against java-1.5.0-gcj-devel which provides java-devel = 1.5.0. I would ask the koji maintainers about this. Tom From skasal at redhat.com Wed May 6 10:00:04 2009 From: skasal at redhat.com (Stepan Kasal) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:00:04 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090506100004.GD26375@camelia.ucw.cz> Hello, On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:43:59PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Andrew Overholt (overholt at redhat.com) said: > > * Andrew Haley [2009-05-05 10:51]: > > > The best defaults for koji are probably gcj on non-x86 machines and > > > openjdk on x86 machines. > > > > If I say "yum install java-devel" what gets installed? How is it > > determined? > > Via the comps file. The current java development group is attached. By > default, installing the group gets you the 'mandatory' and 'default' > packages. > > The comps file does not have arch-specific bits, so doing gcj on > non-x86 and openjdk on x86 isn't really practical, without a lot > of metapackages. this explanation sort of confuses me. The current situation really *is* what Andrew Haley proposed. I guess that though the comps file does not have arch-specific bits, the installation is determined by arch-specific dependencies in the packages. That was exactly what has brought my attention to this: the differences between the two java's (e.g. that jni.h is installed to the default include path by gcj but not by openjdk, different javadocs) make the good old generic BuildRequires: java-devel very problematic, so I had to change it to BuildRequires: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel Well, my package builds fine with gcj and my conscience is clear as I have reported this, so all is fine. :-) Stepan From aph at redhat.com Wed May 6 10:12:30 2009 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:12:30 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090506100004.GD26375@camelia.ucw.cz> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090506100004.GD26375@camelia.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <4A01628E.50406@redhat.com> Stepan Kasal wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:43:59PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> Andrew Overholt (overholt at redhat.com) said: >>> * Andrew Haley [2009-05-05 10:51]: >>>> The best defaults for koji are probably gcj on non-x86 machines and >>>> openjdk on x86 machines. >>> If I say "yum install java-devel" what gets installed? How is it >>> determined? >> Via the comps file. The current java development group is attached. By >> default, installing the group gets you the 'mandatory' and 'default' >> packages. >> >> The comps file does not have arch-specific bits, so doing gcj on >> non-x86 and openjdk on x86 isn't really practical, without a lot >> of metapackages. > > this explanation sort of confuses me. The current situation really > *is* what Andrew Haley proposed. > > I guess that though the comps file does not have arch-specific bits, > the installation is determined by arch-specific dependencies in the > packages. > > That was exactly what has brought my attention to this: > the differences between the two java's (e.g. that jni.h is installed > to the default include path by gcj but not by openjdk, different > javadocs) make the good old generic > BuildRequires: java-devel > very problematic, so I had to change it to > BuildRequires: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel > > Well, my package builds fine with gcj and my conscience is clear as I > have reported this, so all is fine. :-) Sure, but it would make much more sense to look for jni.h in the right place: then it would build with either. I would like to move jni.h out of the compiler's default include path, but then God only knows what else would break. Andrew. From skasal at redhat.com Wed May 6 13:30:04 2009 From: skasal at redhat.com (Stepan Kasal) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:30:04 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <4A01628E.50406@redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090506100004.GD26375@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A01628E.50406@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090506133004.GG26375@camelia.ucw.cz> Hallo, On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:12:30AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Stepan Kasal wrote: > > the differences between the two java's (e.g. that jni.h is installed > > to the default include path by gcj but not by openjdk, different > > javadocs) make the good old generic > > BuildRequires: java-devel > > very problematic, so I had to change it to > > BuildRequires: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel > > > > Well, my package builds fine with gcj and my conscience is clear as I > > have reported this, so all is fine. :-) > > Sure, but it would make much more sense to look for jni.h in the right > place: then it would build with either. I would like to move jni.h out > of the compiler's default include path, but then God only knows what > else would break. well http://bugzilla.redhat.com/498964#c1 seems to recommend for i in -I/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/include{,/linux}; do java_inc="$java_inc $i" done %configure CPPFLAGS="$java_inc" But I'm afraid that this might not work with gcj or java-1.7.0-opejdk (if it existed). Ideally, I would have a solution general for all the javas, e.g. BuildRequires: java-devel %build for i in -I/usr/include/java{,/linux}; do java_inc="$java_inc $i" done %configure CPPFLAGS="$java_inc" where /usr/include/java would be an alternatives-handled symlink. Id that idea too wild? Is there anything a java-illiterate Fedora packager can do to maka it happen? Cheers, Stepan From aph at redhat.com Wed May 6 13:39:01 2009 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 14:39:01 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090506133004.GG26375@camelia.ucw.cz> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090506100004.GD26375@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A01628E.50406@redhat.com> <20090506133004.GG26375@camelia.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <4A0192F5.70003@redhat.com> Stepan Kasal wrote: > Hallo, Hi. > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:12:30AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Stepan Kasal wrote: >>> the differences between the two java's (e.g. that jni.h is installed >>> to the default include path by gcj but not by openjdk, different >>> javadocs) make the good old generic >>> BuildRequires: java-devel >>> very problematic, so I had to change it to >>> BuildRequires: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel >>> >>> Well, my package builds fine with gcj and my conscience is clear as I >>> have reported this, so all is fine. :-) >> Sure, but it would make much more sense to look for jni.h in the right >> place: then it would build with either. I would like to move jni.h out >> of the compiler's default include path, but then God only knows what >> else would break. > > well http://bugzilla.redhat.com/498964#c1 seems to recommend > for i in -I/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/include{,/linux}; do > java_inc="$java_inc $i" > done > %configure CPPFLAGS="$java_inc" > > But I'm afraid that this might not work with gcj or java-1.7.0-opejdk > (if it existed). That's wrong. Use "-I/usr/lib/jvm/java/include/" Symlinks work like this: /usr/lib/jvm/java --> /etc/alternatives/java_sdk --> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk.x86_64 --> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0.x86_64 or, if gcj is installed instead, /usr/lib/jvm/java --> /etc/alternatives/java_sdk --> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj --> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0 Andrew. From caolanm at redhat.com Wed May 6 13:39:39 2009 From: caolanm at redhat.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Caol=E1n?= McNamara) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 14:39:39 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090506133004.GG26375@camelia.ucw.cz> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090506100004.GD26375@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A01628E.50406@redhat.com> <20090506133004.GG26375@camelia.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <1241617179.2551.1253.camel@Vain> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:30 +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > Id that idea too wild? Is there anything a java-illiterate Fedora > packager can do to maka it happen? FWIW, the best I could think of for the OOo configure.in was effectively... class findhome { public static void main(String args[]) { System.out.println(System.getProperty("java.home")); } } javac findhome.java java findhome e.g. /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre or /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre and tack ../include onto that C. From choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de Fri May 8 13:36:31 2009 From: choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de (Christoph =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F6ger?=) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 15:36:31 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] Bug in openjdks TreeMap? Message-ID: <1241789791.3267.8.camel@choeger6> Hi, I enounter a very odd behaviour of a TreeMap. This is the code fragment: System.err.println("contains: " + state.getIndexMap().containsKey(termString)); for (TerminalString term : state.getIndexMap().keySet()) System.err.println("KEYS: " + term + "==" + termString +":" + term.equals(termString) + " compare: " + state.getIndexMap().comparator().compare(term, termString)); The TreeMap returned getIndexMap contains mappings from TerminalString to Integer. This is the output: contains: false KEYS: redeclare (1581148120) ==redeclare (1581148120) :true compare: 0 So the key _is_ in that map. It also has the very same hashcode and the comparator returns 0 and equals() is true. But still containsKey returns zero. Any guess why that? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From loganjerry at gmail.com Fri May 8 14:46:45 2009 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:46:45 -0600 Subject: [fedora-java] Bug in openjdks TreeMap? In-Reply-To: <1241789791.3267.8.camel@choeger6> References: <1241789791.3267.8.camel@choeger6> Message-ID: <870180fe0905080746q6cacf603g48dd74fbdde7d5e3@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/8 Christoph H?ger > Hi, > > I enounter a very odd behaviour of a TreeMap. This is the code fragment: > > System.err.println("contains: " + > state.getIndexMap().containsKey(termString)); > for (TerminalString term : > state.getIndexMap().keySet()) > System.err.println("KEYS: " + term + "==" + > termString +":" + > term.equals(termString) + " compare: " + > state.getIndexMap().comparator().compare(term, termString)); > > The TreeMap returned getIndexMap contains mappings from TerminalString > to Integer. > This is the output: > > contains: false > KEYS: redeclare (1581148120) ==redeclare (1581148120) :true compare: 0 > > So the key _is_ in that map. It also has the very same hashcode and the > comparator returns 0 and equals() is true. But still containsKey returns > zero. > Any guess why that? > This can happen if the Comparator is not consistent with equals() for EVERY value of your key type. It is clear that it is consistent with equals() for the key you are interested in. However, the containsKey() method does a walk of the tree, guided by the comparator. If the comparator makes it take a "wrong turn" at some point in the tree, it can wind up looking at a part of the tree that does not contain the key of interest, and will therefore tell you that the key is not in the map. When you call keySet(), you get all of the keys, regardless of their position in the tree, so then you see it. This is probably not of interest to the list, but if you'll send me your TerminalString code and the comparator you are using in the TreeMap, I'm happy to take a look. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From overholt at redhat.com Fri May 8 19:25:22 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 15:25:22 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090508192522.GB8779@redhat.com> * Bill Nottingham [2009-05-05 13:44]: > The comps file does not have arch-specific bits, so doing gcj on > non-x86 and openjdk on x86 isn't really practical, without a lot > of metapackages. Any idea whey Stepan is seeing different "java-devel" packages being picked on different arches in koji? https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-java-list/2009-May/msg00014.html Andrew From notting at redhat.com Fri May 8 19:58:19 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 15:58:19 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090508192522.GB8779@redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508192522.GB8779@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090508195819.GA12058@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Andrew Overholt (overholt at redhat.com) said: > * Bill Nottingham [2009-05-05 13:44]: > > The comps file does not have arch-specific bits, so doing gcj on > > non-x86 and openjdk on x86 isn't really practical, without a lot > > of metapackages. > > Any idea whey Stepan is seeing different "java-devel" packages being > picked on different arches in koji? > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-java-list/2009-May/msg00014.html Oh, you meant litereally 'yum install java-devel', not 'yum groupinstall java-development'. Sorry. Given multiple providers of java-devel, this is determined by compare_providers in yum (depsolve.py, if you want to read it). This algorithm computes a score for the providers of java-devel, based on the following: 1) whether one obsoletes the other 2) given the requesting package, whether the arch matches 3) given the requesting package, whether it comes from the same source RPM 4) given the requesting package, whether it shares a common name prefig 5) shorter name preferred If you're just going from the command line, the first four won't show a difference, so you're likely to get #5, shortest name. Bill From overholt at redhat.com Fri May 8 20:01:22 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 16:01:22 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090508195819.GA12058@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508192522.GB8779@redhat.com> <20090508195819.GA12058@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090508200121.GE8779@redhat.com> * Bill Nottingham [2009-05-08 15:58]: > 5) shorter name preferred $ rpm -q --whatprovides java-devel java-1.5.0-gcj-devel-1.5.0.0-23.fc10.x86_64 java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0-15.b14.fc10.x86_64 According to Stepan, though, in koji he's getting the latter (OpenJDK) for x86 and x86_64 and the former for non-x86*. Andrew From notting at redhat.com Fri May 8 20:11:07 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 16:11:07 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090508200121.GE8779@redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508192522.GB8779@redhat.com> <20090508195819.GA12058@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508200121.GE8779@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090508201107.GC12058@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Andrew Overholt (overholt at redhat.com) said: > * Bill Nottingham [2009-05-08 15:58]: > > 5) shorter name preferred > > $ rpm -q --whatprovides java-devel > java-1.5.0-gcj-devel-1.5.0.0-23.fc10.x86_64 > java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0-15.b14.fc10.x86_64 > > According to Stepan, though, in koji he's getting the latter (OpenJDK) > for x86 and x86_64 and the former for non-x86*. It may depend on what the requesting package is for his builds, which could trigger the other rules mentioned. Bill From jdf.lists at gmail.com Fri May 8 21:51:15 2009 From: jdf.lists at gmail.com (Joshua Daniel Franklin) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:51:15 -0700 Subject: [fedora-java] endorsed jaxp_parser_impl ? Message-ID: <67437bc40905081451wc2972f7ha426a1e9d4e92dad@mail.gmail.com> Anyone know a particular reason for this postinstall script in the Tomcat5 rpm: rpm -q --scripts tomcat5 build-jar-repository /var/lib/tomcat5/common/endorsed jaxp_parser_impl \ xml-commons-jaxp-1.3-apis 2>&1 It's in both EL5 and the latest Fedora: rpm -q tomcat5 tomcat5-5.5.27-6.2.fc11.noarch It breaks an app we've got, so I'm going to file a bug if it's not required for something. From skasal at redhat.com Mon May 11 09:13:24 2009 From: skasal at redhat.com (Stepan Kasal) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:13:24 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090508200121.GE8779@redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508192522.GB8779@redhat.com> <20090508195819.GA12058@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508200121.GE8779@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090511091324.GB22218@camelia.ucw.cz> Hello, On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 04:01:22PM -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote: > According to Stepan, though, in koji he's getting the latter (OpenJDK) > for x86 and x86_64 and the former for non-x86*. no, I'm getting openjdk for x86 and gcj for all other archs, including x86_64. The inconsistency on x86 multiarch is what first brought my attention to this. Actually, I think I know the answer now:` On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 03:58:19PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > 1) whether one obsoletes the other > 2) given the requesting package, whether the arch matches I believe this is the cause: gcj is still i386, and thus does not match the requesting brltty.i586. I can verify this by a rebuild of java-1.5.0-gcj, I'm going to try this later today. Have a nice day, Stepan From skasal at redhat.com Mon May 11 13:20:38 2009 From: skasal at redhat.com (Stepan Kasal) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:20:38 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <4A0192F5.70003@redhat.com> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090506100004.GD26375@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A01628E.50406@redhat.com> <20090506133004.GG26375@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A0192F5.70003@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090511132038.GA26118@camelia.ucw.cz> Hello, On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:39:01PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > [...] Use "-I/usr/lib/jvm/java/include/" > > Symlinks work like this: > > /usr/lib/jvm/java --> > /etc/alternatives/java_sdk --> > /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk.x86_64 --> > /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0.x86_64 > > or, if gcj is installed instead, > > /usr/lib/jvm/java --> > /etc/alternatives/java_sdk --> > /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj --> > /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0 indeed, this hint enabled me to make a spec file that builds both with gcj and openjdk (see also http://bugzilla.redhat.com/498964#c2): BuildRequires: java-devel [...] for i in -I/usr/lib/jvm/java/include{,/linux}; do java_inc="$java_inc $i" done %configure CPPFLAGS="$java_inc" Perhaps this could be part of Packaging:Java; I'm going to mail this suggestion to fedora-packaging. Stepan From skasal at redhat.com Tue May 12 16:19:35 2009 From: skasal at redhat.com (Stepan Kasal) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:19:35 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090511091324.GB22218@camelia.ucw.cz> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508192522.GB8779@redhat.com> <20090508195819.GA12058@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508200121.GE8779@redhat.com> <20090511091324.GB22218@camelia.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <20090512161935.GA26478@camelia.ucw.cz> Hello again, On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:13:24AM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 03:58:19PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > 1) whether one obsoletes the other > > 2) given the requesting package, whether the arch matches > > I believe this is the cause: gcj is still i386, and thus does not > match the requesting brltty.i586. > > I can verify this by a rebuild of java-1.5.0-gcj, [...] verified. The problem was that java-1.5.0-gcj escaped the F-11 Mass Rebuild. I worked around the bug that prevented the rebuild, and now gcj is preferred on all archs again, as you can check here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1350608 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1350613&name=root.log Stepan Kasal From skasal at redhat.com Tue May 12 16:29:54 2009 From: skasal at redhat.com (Stepan Kasal) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:29:54 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] Should the rebuilt java-1.5.0-gcj go to F-11 ? Message-ID: <20090512162954.GA24451@camelia.ucw.cz> Hello all, I have fixed a bug in F-11 and I need your help for decision whether the fixed package should be pushed to F11 Alpha or whether it should stay away from F11 itself and released as a 0-day update. As you probably know, a mass rebuild was performed during F-11 development (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild) java-1.5.0-gcj has resisted all attempts to be rebuilt, so the latest build was (until now) java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0-25.fc11, predating the mass rebuild. This build contained a i386.rpm for x86, not i586 (the i586 change was one of the reasons for the rebuild). But yum "frowned upon" the i386 rpm, leading to the consequence that the openjdk java was preferred on x86, while gcj was preferred on all other archs, including x86_64. This can be puzzling; we have discussed this in the thread I started a few days ago. I have worked around the bug that prevented java-1.5.0-gcj from rebuilding (it was #500314, if you are curious) and rebuilt it. Consequently, gcj is again the preferred java on all architectures. This new build of java-1.5.0-gcj is ready for the future rawhide (dist-f12) and also for F-11. The question is how it should be included to F-11: it can be either a 0-day update or we can push it to F11 Alpha. Before pushing to F11 Alpha, we have to judge the wins and the risk. - the win is removing the above confusing inconsistency - But what are the risks that this change introduces a new bug to F11 Alpha? I need your help here as I do not understand Java. Would you recommend including the rebuilt java-1.5.0-gcj to Fedora 11 itself? Cheers, Stepan From loganjerry at gmail.com Tue May 12 16:39:33 2009 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:39:33 -0600 Subject: [fedora-java] Should the rebuilt java-1.5.0-gcj go to F-11 ? In-Reply-To: <20090512162954.GA24451@camelia.ucw.cz> References: <20090512162954.GA24451@camelia.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <870180fe0905120939v2b3a5267v6cc1f3d1da567bfd@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Stepan Kasal wrote: > Hello all, > > I have fixed a bug in F-11 and I need your help for decision whether > the fixed package should be pushed to F11 Alpha or whether it should > stay away from F11 itself and released as a 0-day update. Many thanks for getting gcj to build again! > As you probably know, a mass rebuild was performed during F-11 > development (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild) > > java-1.5.0-gcj ?has resisted all attempts to be rebuilt, so the > latest build was (until now) java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0-25.fc11, > predating the mass rebuild. > > This build contained a i386.rpm for x86, not i586 (the i586 change > was one of the reasons for the rebuild). > But yum "frowned upon" the i386 rpm, leading to the consequence that > the openjdk java was preferred on x86, while gcj was preferred on all > other archs, including x86_64. > This can be puzzling; we have discussed this in the thread I started > a few days ago. > > I have worked around the bug that prevented java-1.5.0-gcj from > rebuilding (it was #500314, if you are curious) and rebuilt it. > Consequently, gcj is again the preferred java on all architectures. > > This new build of java-1.5.0-gcj is ready for the future rawhide > (dist-f12) and also for F-11. ?The question is how it should be > included to F-11: it can be either a 0-day update or we can push it > to F11 Alpha. > > Before pushing to F11 Alpha, we have to judge the wins and the risk. > - the win is removing the above confusing inconsistency > - But what are the risks that this change introduces a new bug to F11 > ?Alpha? ?I need your help here as I do not understand Java. If I understand what you did correctly, the sources for gcj have not changed at all, right? It was just a question of tweaking the build environment so that it would rebuild against all the latest stuff. If that is true, then I would say that the risk is very low and the benefits are desirable. > Would you recommend including the rebuilt java-1.5.0-gcj to Fedora 11 > itself? Yes, if for no other reason than that it will stop confusing maintainers who are trying to build Java packages. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ From aph at redhat.com Tue May 12 17:39:36 2009 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:39:36 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] The default java alternative? In-Reply-To: <20090512161935.GA26478@camelia.ucw.cz> References: <20090505105820.GA16768@camelia.ucw.cz> <4A00525B.3090100@redhat.com> <20090505151355.GA25231@redhat.com> <20090505174359.GA2889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508192522.GB8779@redhat.com> <20090508195819.GA12058@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090508200121.GE8779@redhat.com> <20090511091324.GB22218@camelia.ucw.cz> <20090512161935.GA26478@camelia.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <4A09B458.2020408@redhat.com> Stepan Kasal wrote: > Hello again, > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:13:24AM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: >> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 03:58:19PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >>> 1) whether one obsoletes the other >>> 2) given the requesting package, whether the arch matches >> I believe this is the cause: gcj is still i386, and thus does not >> match the requesting brltty.i586. >> >> I can verify this by a rebuild of java-1.5.0-gcj, [...] > > verified. The problem was that java-1.5.0-gcj escaped the F-11 Mass > Rebuild. I worked around the bug that prevented the rebuild, and now > gcj is preferred on all archs again, as you can check here: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1350608 > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1350613&name=root.log OK, so we should be back to the status quo ante. Thanks, Andrew. From overholt at redhat.com Tue May 12 19:22:56 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:22:56 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] Removing Eclipse Fedora branding for F-12 Message-ID: <20090512192255.GA4017@redhat.com> Hi, I think the time has come to remove the Fedora branding in our Eclipse SDK packages. We originally did it for a few reasons (gcj wasn't supported by upstream and we were relying on it, we were patching a few places, etc.) but those are mostly gone now. If I don't hear any reasons that people think we should keep it, I'm going to remove it in the devel branch by the end of the week, 15 May. Thanks, Andrew From choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de Tue May 12 20:20:16 2009 From: choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de (Christoph =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F6ger?=) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:20:16 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] Removing Eclipse Fedora branding for F-12 In-Reply-To: <20090512192255.GA4017@redhat.com> References: <20090512192255.GA4017@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1242159616.16184.18.camel@choeger6> Am Dienstag, den 12.05.2009, 15:22 -0400 schrieb Andrew Overholt: > Hi, > > I think the time has come to remove the Fedora branding in our Eclipse > SDK packages. We originally did it for a few reasons (gcj wasn't > supported by upstream and we were relying on it, we were patching a few > places, etc.) but those are mostly gone now. > > If I don't hear any reasons that people think we should keep it, I'm > going to remove it in the devel branch by the end of the week, 15 May. > > Thanks, > > Andrew Are you doing that for rawhide only? I would suggest keeping f11 as it is. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From fedora at matbooth.co.uk Tue May 12 20:24:31 2009 From: fedora at matbooth.co.uk (Mat Booth) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:24:31 +0100 Subject: [fedora-java] Removing Eclipse Fedora branding for F-12 In-Reply-To: <1242159616.16184.18.camel@choeger6> References: <20090512192255.GA4017@redhat.com> <1242159616.16184.18.camel@choeger6> Message-ID: <9497e9990905121324k563488f8u7ef47cff7e6e9168@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/12 Christoph H?ger : > Am Dienstag, den 12.05.2009, 15:22 -0400 schrieb Andrew Overholt: >> Hi, >> >> I think the time has come to remove the Fedora branding in our Eclipse >> SDK packages. ?We originally did it for a few reasons (gcj wasn't >> supported by upstream and we were relying on it, we were patching a few >> places, etc.) but those are mostly gone now. >> >> If I don't hear any reasons that people think we should keep it, I'm >> going to remove it in the devel branch by the end of the week, 15 May. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andrew > > Are you doing that for rawhide only? I would suggest keeping f11 as it > is. > No, he's suggesting it for the devel branch, which is now F12. The less to maintain, the better. Go for it. -- Mat Booth www.matbooth.co.uk From skasal at redhat.com Wed May 13 10:08:43 2009 From: skasal at redhat.com (Stepan Kasal) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:08:43 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] Should the rebuilt java-1.5.0-gcj go to F-11 ? In-Reply-To: <870180fe0905120939v2b3a5267v6cc1f3d1da567bfd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090512162954.GA24451@camelia.ucw.cz> <870180fe0905120939v2b3a5267v6cc1f3d1da567bfd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090513100843.GA5634@camelia.ucw.cz> Hello, On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:39:33AM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Stepan Kasal wrote: > > Before pushing to F11 Alpha, we have to judge the wins and the risk. > > - the win is removing the above confusing inconsistency > > - But what are the risks that this change introduces a new bug to F11 > > ?Alpha? ?I need your help here as I do not understand Java. > > If I understand what you did correctly, the sources for gcj have not > changed at all, right? [...] right. It's almost sure that my change has no impact on the package itself, it only overcomes a bug in the build environment. > [...] then I would say that the risk is very low and the > benefits are desirable. Well, you can "never enter the same river" (multiple tanslations, but I hope you can deduce what quote I mean). The build from Dec 2008 can differ from the current one because the build environment has changed. The package is just a bunch of symlinks, but anyway. Moreover, the rawhide so far worked with the current packages, so ww might assume there was some testing that proved that other java packages work the current mix; when we change a component, that "testing" is invalidated. > Yes, if for no other reason than that it will stop confusing > maintainers who are trying to build Java packages. OK, I'll file a ticket. Stepan From akurtako at redhat.com Wed May 13 10:24:44 2009 From: akurtako at redhat.com (Alexander Kurtakov) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:24:44 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] Removing Eclipse Fedora branding for F-12 In-Reply-To: <20090512192255.GA4017@redhat.com> References: <20090512192255.GA4017@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200905131224.45830.akurtako@redhat.com> On Tuesday 12 May 2009 21:22:56 Andrew Overholt wrote: > Hi, > > I think the time has come to remove the Fedora branding in our Eclipse > SDK packages. We originally did it for a few reasons (gcj wasn't > supported by upstream and we were relying on it, we were patching a few > places, etc.) but those are mostly gone now. > > If I don't hear any reasons that people think we should keep it, I'm > going to remove it in the devel branch by the end of the week, 15 May. I would really love to see this happen. Regards, Alex > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > -- > fedora-devel-java-list mailing list > fedora-devel-java-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list From alcapcom at gmail.com Wed May 13 11:15:07 2009 From: alcapcom at gmail.com (alcapcom) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:15:07 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] Removing Eclipse Fedora branding for F-12 In-Reply-To: <200905131224.45830.akurtako@redhat.com> References: <20090512192255.GA4017@redhat.com> <200905131224.45830.akurtako@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ccd9dcb0905130415w418459dch6f691596c87f6953@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/13 Alexander Kurtakov : > On Tuesday 12 May 2009 21:22:56 Andrew Overholt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think the time has come to remove the Fedora branding in our Eclipse >> SDK packages. ?We originally did it for a few reasons (gcj wasn't >> supported by upstream and we were relying on it, we were patching a few >> places, etc.) but those are mostly gone now. >> >> If I don't hear any reasons that people think we should keep it, I'm >> going to remove it in the devel branch by the end of the week, 15 May. > > I would really love to see this happen. > Me too. Alphonse From mcepl at redhat.com Fri May 15 00:05:26 2009 From: mcepl at redhat.com (Matej Cepl) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 02:05:26 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] jython 2.5fc3 anybody? Message-ID: <67oud6-mfe.ln1@ppp1053.in.ipex.cz> Hi, does anybody works on packaging of jython 2.5rc3? Are there any preliminary packages for that? I tried to rebuild Rawhide jython with new sources, but build crashed (I would have to run build again, not having particular error messages at hand, and I don't think it helps anybody else than somebody who actually works on packaging). My current spec file is http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/jython.spec Best, mat?j From overholt at redhat.com Fri May 15 12:51:05 2009 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:51:05 -0400 Subject: [fedora-java] jython 2.5fc3 anybody? In-Reply-To: <67oud6-mfe.ln1@ppp1053.in.ipex.cz> References: <67oud6-mfe.ln1@ppp1053.in.ipex.cz> Message-ID: <1242391865.2944.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi, On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 02:05 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote: > does anybody works on packaging of jython 2.5rc3? Not me. I think I may own jython but if someone has an actual interest in it and can take it over, I'd really appreciate it. > http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/jython.spec If you post a full SRPM I can take a look. Andrew From mcepl at redhat.com Fri May 15 13:11:55 2009 From: mcepl at redhat.com (Matej Cepl) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 15:11:55 +0200 Subject: [fedora-java] Re: jython 2.5fc3 anybody? References: <67oud6-mfe.ln1@ppp1053.in.ipex.cz> <1242391865.2944.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 2009-05-15, 12:51 GMT, Andrew Overholt wrote: >> http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/jython.spec > > If you post a full SRPM I can take a look. There is no full SRPM, because build didn't work. Let me see whether I can make one. Mat?j