icedtea status?
 

Hi all,

Does anyone know what is holding the Ubuntu icedtea package out of
Debian? Are the licence issues still a problem? I see there is some
packaging in SVN.

I'm watching the Lenny freeze slowly approaching and wondering if
Debian will see OpenJDK/IcedTea packages early enough for all those
contrib Java-based packages to move to main.

Also, is icedtea appropriate to have in a stable release, or should
only OpenJDK be in stable?

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2007-December/000810.html

In any case it would be nice to have IcedTea in experimental at least.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

icedtea status?
 

2007/12/29, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>:
> Hi all,
>
> Does anyone know what is holding the Ubuntu icedtea package out of
> Debian? Are the licence issues still a problem? I see there is some
> packaging in SVN.

I don't know how is working on icedtea/openjdk on Debian but AFAIK,
there are a lot of licenses and they must be all analysed.

> I'm watching the Lenny freeze slowly approaching and wondering if
> Debian will see OpenJDK/IcedTea packages early enough for all those
> contrib Java-based packages to move to main.

Icedtea/OpenJDK will only solve the move to main for x86 and x64
arches. There is a port from Gary Benson on PowerPC (only in
interpreter mode at the moment and it's barely usable for applications
like eclipse) but AFAIK Icedtea/OpenJDK will not run on other arches
(maybe it can run on sparc but I'm not sure).

> Also, is icedtea appropriate to have in a stable release, or should
> only OpenJDK be in stable?
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2007-December/000810.html

Icedtea == OpenJDK but built entirely with free software.

OpenJDK is a work in progress, so it's not as stable as JDK6.

> In any case it would be nice to have IcedTea in experimental at least.

IceTea/OpenJDK will not break anything, it could be in unstable.

--
Arnaud Vandyck


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

icedtea status?
 

On Dec 29, 2007 6:04 PM, Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org> wrote:

> I don't know how is working on icedtea/openjdk on Debian but AFAIK,
> there are a lot of licenses and they must be all analysed.

doko, are you out there? Are your Ubuntu icedtea packages ready for
Debian or do they need more work? What tasks are remaining?

> Icedtea/OpenJDK will only solve the move to main for x86 and x64
> arches. There is a port from Gary Benson on PowerPC (only in
> interpreter mode at the moment and it's barely usable for applications
> like eclipse) but AFAIK Icedtea/OpenJDK will not run on other arches
> (maybe it can run on sparc but I'm not sure).

IMO main/contrib is a separate issue to portability. There are plenty
of packages in main that only work on one architecture or a few of
them. The powerpc work seems to be released now BTW:

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2008-January/000821.html

> > In any case it would be nice to have IcedTea in experimental at least.
>
> IceTea/OpenJDK will not break anything, it could be in unstable.

That would be great.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

icedtea status?
 

2008/1/5, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>:
> On Dec 29, 2007 6:04 PM, Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org> wrote:
[...]
> > Icedtea/OpenJDK will only solve the move to main for x86 and x64
> > arches. There is a port from Gary Benson on PowerPC (only in
> > interpreter mode at the moment and it's barely usable for applications
> > like eclipse) but AFAIK Icedtea/OpenJDK will not run on other arches
> > (maybe it can run on sparc but I'm not sure).
>
> IMO main/contrib is a separate issue to portability. There are plenty
> of packages in main that only work on one architecture or a few of
> them.

Java apps are arch: all. How do you move "fop" (which is arch: all) to
main on x86 only? I think it'd be a problem. I can't imagine Debian to
distribute java package in main only for x86 and the same packages in
contrib for other arches!

> The powerpc work seems to be released now BTW:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2008-January/000821.html

Maybe you did not read my mail:

> > [...] There is a port from Gary Benson on PowerPC (only in
> > interpreter mode at the moment and it's barely usable for applications
> > like eclipse) [...]

I already have this build on my PowerBook G4 and as I said, it's
barely usable. It works for a lot of things (but I haven't been able
to open a java class in the Eclipse editor) and it's very slow (fast
to start but then, it's very slow). It's because OpenJDK has no JIT at
the moment.

Cheers,

--
Arnaud Vandyck


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

icedtea status?
 

[Arnaud Vandyck]
> Java apps are arch: all. How do you move "fop" (which is arch: all)
> to main on x86 only? I think it'd be a problem. I can't imagine
> Debian to distribute java package in main only for x86 and the same
> packages in contrib for other arches!

There is no need to have them in contrib for other arches. You seem
to assume that packages in main need to work on all architectures. As
far as I know, there is no such requirement. It only need to work on
at least one. The policy section 2.2.1 (the main category) reads:

Every package in main must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free
Software Guidelines).

In addition, the packages in main
- must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
"Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main
package),
- must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and
- must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual.

Nothing there require it to work on _all_ architectures. Those on
architectures where a package in main does not work yet, are free to
port it to their architecture (as it is following DFSG), but there is
no requirement for anyone to do it.

I fail to see how it make a difference for users of architectures
where a given package do not work if that package is available in main
or contrib. They still need to get extra software from somewhere,
change their hardware, or port the software to their architecture.
The location of the source or binary do not affect their options,
while it do change the options for those architectures where the
package in question do work.

Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

icedtea status?
 

2008/1/6, Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>:
>
> There is no need to have them in contrib for other arches. You seem
> to assume that packages in main need to work on all architectures. As
> far as I know, there is no such requirement. It only need to work on
> at least one. The policy section 2.2.1 (the main category) reads:
>
> Every package in main must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free
> Software Guidelines).
>
> In addition, the packages in main
> - must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
> execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
> "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main
> package),

But on other arches, the package will require a package *outside* of main!

> - must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and
> - must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual.
>
> Nothing there require it to work on _all_ architectures. Those on
> architectures where a package in main does not work yet, are free to
> port it to their architecture (as it is following DFSG), but there is
> no requirement for anyone to do it.

but they do work on arches that have a non-free jvm so they have to go
to contrib.

> I fail to see how it make a difference for users of architectures
> where a given package do not work if that package is available in main
> or contrib. They still need to get extra software from somewhere,
> change their hardware, or port the software to their architecture.
> The location of the source or binary do not affect their options,
> while it do change the options for those architectures where the
> package in question do work.

libhibernate3-java works on powerpc with IBM's non-free jvm and is in
contrib. It'll work with Icedtea/OpenJDK. Will you put
libhibernate3-java in main?! That's the problem. You cannot say
libhibernate3-java is in main because on other arches then x86, it
needs software outside of main, so it must be in contrib!

--
Arnaud Vandyck


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

icedtea status?
 

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 04:38:48PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> 2008/1/6, Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>:
> >
> > There is no need to have them in contrib for other arches. You seem
> > to assume that packages in main need to work on all architectures. As
> > far as I know, there is no such requirement. It only need to work on
> > at least one. The policy section 2.2.1 (the main category) reads:
> >
> > Every package in main must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free
> > Software Guidelines).
> >
> > In addition, the packages in main
> > - must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
> > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
> > "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main
> > package),
>
> But on other arches, the package will require a package *outside* of main!
>
> > - must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and
> > - must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual.
> >
> > Nothing there require it to work on _all_ architectures. Those on
> > architectures where a package in main does not work yet, are free to
> > port it to their architecture (as it is following DFSG), but there is
> > no requirement for anyone to do it.
>
> but they do work on arches that have a non-free jvm so they have to go
> to contrib.
>
> > I fail to see how it make a difference for users of architectures
> > where a given package do not work if that package is available in main
> > or contrib. They still need to get extra software from somewhere,
> > change their hardware, or port the software to their architecture.
> > The location of the source or binary do not affect their options,
> > while it do change the options for those architectures where the
> > package in question do work.
>
> libhibernate3-java works on powerpc with IBM's non-free jvm and is in
> contrib. It'll work with Icedtea/OpenJDK. Will you put
> libhibernate3-java in main?! That's the problem. You cannot say
> libhibernate3-java is in main because on other arches then x86, it
> needs software outside of main, so it must be in contrib!

I have to say I agree with Petter. I would say that stuff can go to main
when it works on one or two or three archs and not others with free
runtimes. Runtimes will get bug reports that stuff dont works on certain
platforms and people will work on this. This will encourage even more
people...


Cheers,
Michael


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

icedtea status?
 

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 12:29:58AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007 6:04 PM, Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > I don't know how is working on icedtea/openjdk on Debian but AFAIK,
> > there are a lot of licenses and they must be all analysed.
>
> doko, are you out there? Are your Ubuntu icedtea packages ready for
> Debian or do they need more work? What tasks are remaining?
>
> > Icedtea/OpenJDK will only solve the move to main for x86 and x64
> > arches. There is a port from Gary Benson on PowerPC (only in
> > interpreter mode at the moment and it's barely usable for applications
> > like eclipse) but AFAIK Icedtea/OpenJDK will not run on other arches
> > (maybe it can run on sparc but I'm not sure).
>
> IMO main/contrib is a separate issue to portability. There are plenty
> of packages in main that only work on one architecture or a few of
> them. The powerpc work seems to be released now BTW:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2008-January/000821.html
>
> > > In any case it would be nice to have IcedTea in experimental at least.
> >
> > IceTea/OpenJDK will not break anything, it could be in unstable.
>
> That would be great.

I work on icedtea package currently. There are some issues taht I can
hopefully sort out this week.


Cheers,
Michael


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

icedtea status?
 

On Jan 7, 2008 2:40 AM, Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de> wrote:

> I work on icedtea package currently. There are some issues taht I can
> hopefully sort out this week.

Could you please take over the RFP then?

http://bugs.debian.org/452750

Also, the Ubuntu packaging is in pkg-java SVN, will you be maintaining it there?

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

icedtea status?
 

2008/1/6, Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de>:
[...]
> I have to say I agree with Petter. I would say that stuff can go to main
> when it works on one or two or three archs and not others with free
> runtimes. Runtimes will get bug reports that stuff dont works on certain
> platforms and people will work on this. This will encourage even more
> people...

I don't agree and I think it's a sort of lie. There has been two or
three years that we agreed to take gcj as our reference free vm. A
package that could be built and run with gcj is considered completely
free and can move to main. Now, if we move every packages to main
because they can be built and run with openjdk, we send a bad message
to our users.

Anyway, Michael, thanks for working on Icedtea and I will not waste
time to send bug reports on packages that moved to main but should
IMHO remain in contrib.

Cheers,

--
Arnaud Vandyck


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org