Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Debian Java (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-java/)
-   -   Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-java/355551-solving-default-jdk-builddep-mess.html)

Niels Thykier 04-12-2010 06:36 AM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
Hi

As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs
(openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages.
However, some people are not aware of this and looking at the name of
the package they assume it is the Java Team's "Default Build-Dependency"
or in other words the "Right Thing" (tm) to Depend on to get a java
compiler.

I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a
suggestion for a new name, please come with it.

Once we have found a new I suggest we clean up our own packages and bug
the few packages outside the Java Team that actually produces -gcj
packages before making default-jdk-builddep an alias of default-jdk.
I think this will be easier than teaching the rest of Debian that
default-jdk-builddep should be default-jdk - particularly because this
mistake has found its way into the AM process[1], so currently new DDs
are taught this mistake is the "Right Thing" (tm).

~Niels

[1]
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts1_followup.txt?revision=1136&view=markup

Vincent Fourmond 04-12-2010 08:56 AM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
Hello,

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
> As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs
> (openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages.
> *However, some people are not aware of this and looking at the name of
> the package they assume it is the Java Team's "Default Build-Dependency"
> or in other words the "Right Thing" (tm) to Depend on to get a java
> compiler.
>
> I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
> else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
> B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a
> suggestion for a new name, please come with it.

default-jdk-native default-jdk-jni ?

> Once we have found a new I suggest we clean up our own packages and bug
> the few packages outside the Java Team that actually produces -gcj
> packages before making default-jdk-builddep an alias of default-jdk.
> *I think this will be easier than teaching the rest of Debian that
> default-jdk-builddep should be default-jdk - particularly because this
> mistake has found its way into the AM process[1], so currently new DDs
> are taught this mistake is the "Right Thing" (tm).

Shouldn't default-jdk-builldep simply be removed ? It makes sense to
b-d on a JDK to build packages... No need for an additional builddep.
Of course, this will need transitioning, but anyway we want to make
sure that what is now -builddep will only be used when gcj packages
are produced.

What about a lintian warning when Build-depending on -builddep but
not producing gcj packages ? That should be very easy to do.

Cheers,

Vincent, who probably did the mistake several times already.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: o2g2e474d6f1004120156r48551743hc4abc438ccbd49e1@ma il.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/o2g2e474d6f1004120156r48551743hc4abc438ccbd49e1@ma il.gmail.com

Torsten Werner 04-12-2010 09:27 AM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Niels Thykier schrieb:
> I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
> else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
> B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a
> suggestion for a new name, please come with it.

i think we should remove default-jdk-builddep. If a package needs
gcj-jdk it should be specified as an extra B-D.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkvC54oACgkQfY3dicTPjsNTyQCdEizXzAYIAq WvANpzF1Nn3g9W
nSgAn36wqU4IajkhnGqMo9+8d2bKeOrc
=vO3X
-----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: 4BC2E78A.7090006@googlemail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4BC2E78A.7090006@googlemail.com

Matthias Klose 04-12-2010 10:26 AM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
On 12.04.2010 11:27, Torsten Werner wrote:

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

Hi,

Niels Thykier schrieb:

I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a
suggestion for a new name, please come with it.


i think we should remove default-jdk-builddep. If a package needs
gcj-jdk it should be specified as an extra B-D.


no, that seems to be wrong. assume an architecture which doesn't have gcj-jdk
(which we had in the past), you'll have a dependency of gcj-jdk [...] which
you'll have to change in every package, whereas the current solution doesn't
require any package change but java-common.


The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the name, but this
should be a distinct package.


CC'ing Enrico; please change that in [1] for now.

Matthias

[1]
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts1_followup.txt?revision=1136&view=markup



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BC2F550.7000708@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4BC2F550.7000708@debian.org

Matthew Johnson 04-12-2010 10:42 AM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
On Mon Apr 12 10:56, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
> > As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs
> > (openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages.
> > *However, some people are not aware of this and looking at the name of
> > the package they assume it is the Java Team's "Default Build-Dependency"
> > or in other words the "Right Thing" (tm) to Depend on to get a java
> > compiler.
> >
> > I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
> > else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
> > B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a
> > suggestion for a new name, please come with it.
>
> default-jdk-native default-jdk-jni ?

-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.

> > Once we have found a new I suggest we clean up our own packages and bug
> > the few packages outside the Java Team that actually produces -gcj
> > packages before making default-jdk-builddep an alias of default-jdk.
> > *I think this will be easier than teaching the rest of Debian that
> > default-jdk-builddep should be default-jdk - particularly because this
> > mistake has found its way into the AM process[1], so currently new DDs
> > are taught this mistake is the "Right Thing" (tm).
>
> Shouldn't default-jdk-builldep simply be removed ? It makes sense to
> b-d on a JDK to build packages... No need for an additional builddep.
> Of course, this will need transitioning, but anyway we want to make
> sure that what is now -builddep will only be used when gcj packages
> are produced.
>
> What about a lintian warning when Build-depending on -builddep but
> not producing gcj packages ? That should be very easy to do.

I concur, and we should fix the AM process ASAP. There's no reason to keep a
useless meta package around any longer than we need to.

It can't be hard to scan the sources file and find out what depends on
-builddep and doesn't create a gcj package, we should just fix those.

Matt

--
Matthew Johnson

Enrico Zini 04-12-2010 10:52 AM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:

> The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the
> name, but this should be a distinct package.
>
> CC'ing Enrico; please change that in [1] for now.
> [1] http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts1_followup.txt?revision=1136&view=markup

I'm more than happy to change it, but since [1] is my understanding of
the situation, obviously my understanding is wrong.

I don't quite understand what is wrong with [1], so you'd help me
considerably by sending me a patch on how you'd like [1] to be changed.


Ciao,

Enrico

--
GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>

Vincent Fourmond 04-12-2010 11:08 AM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Enrico Zini <enrico@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the
>> name, but this should be a distinct package.
>>
>> CC'ing Enrico; please change that in [1] for now.
>> [1] http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts1_followup.txt?revision=1136&view=markup
>
> I'm more than happy to change it, but since [1] is my understanding of
> the situation, obviously my understanding is wrong.
>
> I don't quite understand what is wrong with [1], so you'd help me
> considerably by sending me a patch on how you'd like [1] to be changed.

Probably completely dropping this paragraph is the best solution:

"The same technique is for example adopted by the Java maintainers
without using build-essential but by providing a default-jdk-builddep
metapackage that people can build-depend on."

Cheers,

Vincent


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: g2k2e474d6f1004120408ka6c81867o533c8b6a9e57d58b@ma il.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/g2k2e474d6f1004120408ka6c81867o533c8b6a9e57d58b@ma il.gmail.com

Matthias Klose 04-12-2010 11:54 AM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
On 12.04.2010 13:08, Vincent Fourmond wrote:

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Enrico Zini<enrico@debian.org> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:


The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the
name, but this should be a distinct package.

CC'ing Enrico; please change that in [1] for now.
[1] http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts1_followup.txt?revision=1136&view=markup


I'm more than happy to change it, but since [1] is my understanding of
the situation, obviously my understanding is wrong.

I don't quite understand what is wrong with [1], so you'd help me
considerably by sending me a patch on how you'd like [1] to be changed.


Probably completely dropping this paragraph is the best solution:

"The same technique is for example adopted by the Java maintainers
without using build-essential but by providing a default-jdk-builddep
metapackage that people can build-depend on."


s/default-jdk-builddep/default-jdk/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BC309E4.50309@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4BC309E4.50309@debian.org

Matthias Klose 04-12-2010 11:58 AM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
On 12.04.2010 12:42, Matthew Johnson wrote:

On Mon Apr 12 10:56, Vincent Fourmond wrote:

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier<niels@thykier.net> wrote:

As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs
(openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages.
However, some people are not aware of this and looking at the name of
the package they assume it is the Java Team's "Default Build-Dependency"
or in other words the "Right Thing" (tm) to Depend on to get a java
compiler.

I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a
suggestion for a new name, please come with it.


default-jdk-native default-jdk-jni ?


-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.

Matthias


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BC30AFF.7060900@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4BC30AFF.7060900@debian.org

Enrico Zini 04-12-2010 12:26 PM

Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess
 
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 01:08:24PM +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:

> Probably completely dropping this paragraph is the best solution:
>
> "The same technique is for example adopted by the Java maintainers
> without using build-essential but by providing a default-jdk-builddep
> metapackage that people can build-depend on."

Ok, done and committed. Thanks for your help.


Ciao,

Enrico

--
GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:56 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.