FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Java

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-12-2010, 12:30 PM
Matthew Johnson
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On Mon Apr 12 13:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> -gcj please, it's not needed just for for JNI, that should be clear. I also
>> agree that there's no need to have a default-jdk+gcj builddep, you can just
>> depend on both if you need both. I don't know whether gcj-jdk is suitable for
>> that, if not then a similarly named meta-package.
>
> No. It shouldn't be an extra build-dependency. See my followup to Torsten.

AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and
depend on jdk, -gcj; rather than what we have at the moment which is a jdk
metapackage and a jdk-gcj metapackage, and you depend on one or the other.

Matt

--
Matthew Johnson
 
Old 04-12-2010, 12:40 PM
Torsten Werner
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthew Johnson schrieb:
> AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
> that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and
> depend on jdk, -gcj; rather than what we have at the moment which is a jdk
> metapackage and a jdk-gcj metapackage, and you depend on one or the other.

We should come up with a name - gcj-native-helper maybe?

Cheers,
Torsten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkvDFNoACgkQfY3dicTPjsOdXACcC0S8L+vvXz NGdELvmbbj0PnG
MBQAnA8kOZfcrc+CQHwcgH3h/Mr5d1bO
=qQTe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BC314DA.5050109@googlemail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4BC314DA.5050109@googlemail.com
 
Old 04-12-2010, 05:57 PM
Matthias Klose
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthew Johnson schrieb:

AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and
depend on jdk, -gcj; rather than what we have at the moment which is a jdk
metapackage and a jdk-gcj metapackage, and you depend on one or the other.


We should come up with a name - gcj-native-helper maybe?


if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not
available, then yes.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BC35F1E.3060103@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4BC35F1E.3060103@debian.org
 
Old 04-12-2010, 10:36 PM
Matthew Johnson
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On Mon Apr 12 19:57, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Matthew Johnson schrieb:
>>> AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
>>> that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and
>>> depend on jdk, -gcj; rather than what we have at the moment which is a jdk
>>> metapackage and a jdk-gcj metapackage, and you depend on one or the other.
>>
>> We should come up with a name - gcj-native-helper maybe?
>
> if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not
> available, then yes.

Yes, although if you are trying to build a -gcj package on an architecture
which does not have gcj, possibly failing the dependency is actually correct....

Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
 
Old 04-12-2010, 10:46 PM
Matthias Klose
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On 13.04.2010 00:36, Matthew Johnson wrote:

On Mon Apr 12 19:57, Matthias Klose wrote:

On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthew Johnson schrieb:

AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and
depend on jdk, -gcj; rather than what we have at the moment which is a jdk
metapackage and a jdk-gcj metapackage, and you depend on one or the other.


We should come up with a name - gcj-native-helper maybe?


if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not
available, then yes.


Yes, although if you are trying to build a -gcj package on an architecture
which does not have gcj, possibly failing the dependency is actually correct....


No, it's not. All the current packages build on all archs, wether gcj is
available or not, but are empty packages on the archs without gcj (well, just
having the symlinks/copyright files in /usr/share/doc).


Matthias


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BC3A2CF.5020601@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4BC3A2CF.5020601@debian.org
 
Old 04-12-2010, 10:52 PM
Matthew Johnson
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On Tue Apr 13 00:46, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not
>>> available, then yes.
>>
>> Yes, although if you are trying to build a -gcj package on an architecture
>> which does not have gcj, possibly failing the dependency is actually correct....
>
> No, it's not. All the current packages build on all archs, wether gcj is
> available or not, but are empty packages on the archs without gcj (well,
> just having the symlinks/copyright files in /usr/share/doc).
>

Retaining that behaviour is certainly possible, but surely it's better to only
build the packages on certain arches? If that's hard to do someone probably
needs to write a tool...

Matt

--
Matthew Johnson
 
Old 04-12-2010, 11:39 PM
Matthias Klose
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On 13.04.2010 00:52, Matthew Johnson wrote:

On Tue Apr 13 00:46, Matthias Klose wrote:

if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not
available, then yes.


Yes, although if you are trying to build a -gcj package on an architecture
which does not have gcj, possibly failing the dependency is actually correct....


No, it's not. All the current packages build on all archs, wether gcj is
available or not, but are empty packages on the archs without gcj (well,
just having the symlinks/copyright files in /usr/share/doc).



Retaining that behaviour is certainly possible, but surely it's better to only
build the packages on certain arches? If that's hard to do someone probably
needs to write a tool...


Did you read me reply in this thread? It's a design decision between changing
one package or all packages building -gcj binary packages, if one architecture
doesn't build gcj. We did have this state often enough in the past. Please
don't try to "fix" something which doesn't need to be "fixed".


Matthias


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BC3AF2D.40503@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4BC3AF2D.40503@debian.org
 
Old 04-26-2010, 05:45 PM
Niels Thykier
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Matthew Johnson schrieb:
>>> AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm
>>> suggesting
>>> that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj
>>> packages and
>>> depend on jdk, -gcj; rather than what we have at the moment which is
>>> a jdk
>>> metapackage and a jdk-gcj metapackage, and you depend on one or the
>>> other.
>>
>> We should come up with a name - gcj-native-helper maybe?
>
> if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not
> available, then yes.
>
>

Sorry for not following up on this sooner.

What do you feel about this solution; we rename "default-jdk-builddep"
to "gcj-native-helper" and have it only pull gcj-jdk (if available) or
nothing at all.
When updating Build-rdepends we will have to add default-jdk as well
to get the default-java as well. The rationale being that it is not
there to provide a default-jdk, but what you need to create gcj packages.


We have a "short transition" period where gcj-native-helper provides
default-jdk-builddep and still Depends on default-jdk while we fix our
packages. Once that is done we remove the provides and the Depends on
default-jdk.
According to my build-rdeps we got 85 B-D uses of
default-jdk-builddep, so the transition may be a bit longer than "short".

Since we are planning to do a rename + removal and be done with it, I do
not think we should file a request for lintian to check for this. I
doubt anyone will use gcj-native-helper instead of default-jdk after the
rename.

~Niels
 
Old 04-26-2010, 05:58 PM
Torsten Werner
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
> What do you feel about this solution; we rename "default-jdk-builddep"
> to "gcj-native-helper" and have it only pull gcj-jdk (if available) or
> nothing at all.
> *When updating Build-rdepends we will have to add default-jdk as well
> to get the default-java as well. The rationale being that it is not
> there to provide a default-jdk, but what you need to create gcj packages.
>
> We have a "short transition" period where gcj-native-helper provides
> default-jdk-builddep and still Depends on default-jdk while we fix our
> packages. Once that is done we remove the provides and the Depends on
> default-jdk.

Sounds good to me!

Cheers,
Torsten


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: n2ia90bfcf1004261058h981d390al8124eabf22ec9a23@mai l.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/n2ia90bfcf1004261058h981d390al8124eabf22ec9a23@mai l.gmail.com
 
Old 04-26-2010, 11:29 PM
Matthew Johnson
 
Default Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On Mon Apr 26 19:58, Torsten Werner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
> > What do you feel about this solution; we rename "default-jdk-builddep"
> > to "gcj-native-helper" and have it only pull gcj-jdk (if available) or
> > nothing at all.
> > *When updating Build-rdepends we will have to add default-jdk as well
> > to get the default-java as well. The rationale being that it is not
> > there to provide a default-jdk, but what you need to create gcj packages.
> >
> > We have a "short transition" period where gcj-native-helper provides
> > default-jdk-builddep and still Depends on default-jdk while we fix our
> > packages. Once that is done we remove the provides and the Depends on
> > default-jdk.
>
> Sounds good to me!

AOL

Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:12 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org