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 > Redhat > Fedora Development Java

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-06-2009, 06:45 PM
Andrew Overholt
 
Default Separate ecj SRPM

Hi,

We'd like to enable an RPM script that mirrors OSGi Require-Bundle,
Import-Package, and Export-Package statements into RPM virtual Requires
and Provides [0]. While testing this, Alphonse van Assche discovered
that our eclipse-ecj package should actually Require eclipse-rcp [1].
eclipse-rcp also includes SWT which itself needs a bunch of GNOME
libraries and XULRunner. I don't think we want java-gcj-compat dragging
in XULRunner and a bunch of GNOME libraries.

Therefore, I think we need to have a separate ecj SRPM/RPM [2]. I have
whipped up a simple one for use by java-gcj-compat and put it here:

http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/ecj-3.4.2-1.fc10.src.rpm

The java-gcj-compat maintainers will have to own it and therefore test
it out. I don't anticipate any issues, but please test it ASAP so we
can deal with any fallout. Once it's been deemed acceptable, it will
have to go through a review which I probably shouldn't do Then, the
eclipse package will need to:

- remove all references to ecj
- keep jdtcore symlinks but not ecj symlinks
- move jdtcore symlinks to -jdt package and remove -ecj package

This is all pretty minor and can be done very quickly. Ideally we'd get
it done before the beta freeze on Tuesday. If we can't get it done by
then, we could perhaps justify the minor changes for after the freeze or
wait until F-12.

Thanks,

Andrew

[0]
Having automatic and correct OSGi bundle-level requirements matched in
our RPMs will be very nice. We will obviously still need BuildRequires
but we'll know at install time if there will be an error with OSGi
dependency resolution at runtime.

[1]
This is because our eclipse-ecj package contains the
org.eclipse.jdt.core plugin which needs org.eclipse.core.runtime among
other stuff and core.runtime is in the RCP feature. Note that the new
ecj package will contain just the batch compiler part of jdt.core -- as
opposed to the entire thing like we do now -- so it won't have the
dependency on any RCP bundles at the OSGi level (in fact, it won't even
be an OSGi bundle).

[2]
There are other benefits to a standalone ecj SRPM, of course:

- we don't need to patch org.eclipse.jdt.core and diverge from upstream
- GCCMain -- the gcj driver for ecj -- can go into the ecj JAR and not
jdt.core itself
- bootstrapping a full gcc SRPM no longer requires the output of
building an eclipse SRPM

One concern is that RHEL-5 has an unversioned Obsoletes/Provides on
"ecj" which should probably get fixed.

--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
 
Old 03-06-2009, 08:06 PM
David Walluck
 
Default Separate ecj SRPM

Andrew Overholt wrote:

One concern is that RHEL-5 has an unversioned Obsoletes/Provides on
"ecj" which should probably get fixed.


Fedora eclipse-ecj is also missing an epoch, but only for the ecj
Provides and Obsoletes.


$ rpm -q --provides eclipse-ecj

ecj = 3.4.1-5.fc10
eclipse-ecj = 1:3.4.1-5.fc10
eclipse-ecj(x86-64) = 1:3.4.1-5.fc10

$ rpm -q --obsoletes eclipse-ecj
ecj < 3.4.1-5.fc10

I think that this is causing conflicts with the standalone ecj packages
currently floating around JPackage and some internal Red Hat builds.


Aside from that, I am all for a standalone ecj.

I am also for a standalone swt, but that is another can of worms. In
either case, it would allow those packages to grow independently of
eclipse builds (or their bugs). And as you mentioned, they are much
quicker to build and update.


--
Sincerely,

David Walluck
<david@zarb.org>

--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
 
Old 03-06-2009, 08:08 PM
Andrew Overholt
 
Default Separate ecj SRPM

On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 16:06 -0500, David Walluck wrote:
> Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > One concern is that RHEL-5 has an unversioned Obsoletes/Provides on
> > "ecj" which should probably get fixed.
>
> Fedora eclipse-ecj is also missing an epoch, but only for the ecj
> Provides and Obsoletes.

Yeah, I saw that Thanks.

> Aside from that, I am all for a standalone ecj.

Cool.

Andrew

--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
 
Old 03-07-2009, 07:44 AM
Andrew Haley
 
Default Separate ecj SRPM

Andrew Overholt wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 16:06 -0500, David Walluck wrote:
>> Andrew Overholt wrote:
>>> One concern is that RHEL-5 has an unversioned Obsoletes/Provides on
>>> "ecj" which should probably get fixed.
>> Fedora eclipse-ecj is also missing an epoch, but only for the ecj
>> Provides and Obsoletes.
>
> Yeah, I saw that Thanks.
>
>> Aside from that, I am all for a standalone ecj.
>
> Cool.

Yes, that'll help a lot.

Andrew.

--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:28 AM.

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