There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't
compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora?
During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build requiring IcedTea
came up. The informal policy decision was that packages may build require
IcedTea, but must still run on the base Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc,
ppc64) without requiring external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant packages
had to run on ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9, IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter
should suffice. So while ideally the package would build on both, pragmatically
I'd say go ahead and build require IcedTea.
Tom
--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
11-26-2007, 07:00 PM
Andrew Haley
Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj
Thomas Fitzsimmons writes:
> Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't
> > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora?
>
> During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build
> requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was that
> packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on the base
> Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64) without requiring
> external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant packages had to run on
> ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9, IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter
> should suffice. So while ideally the package would build on both,
> pragmatically I'd say go ahead and build require IcedTea.
I understand that, but it would surely be better in this case to get
the fix into libgcj. It's not particularly difficult to do, and
surely we can be allowed the short time it would take to get the fix
in, and then the package would run everywhere. Sure, it's tempting to
take the easy road, but in this case it's not hugely difficult to do
the right thing.
Andrew.
--
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
11-26-2007, 07:09 PM
Thomas Fitzsimmons
Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj
Andrew Haley wrote:
Thomas Fitzsimmons writes:
> Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't
> > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora?
>
> During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build
> requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was that
> packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on the base
> Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64) without requiring
> external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant packages had to run on
> ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9, IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter
> should suffice. So while ideally the package would build on both,
> pragmatically I'd say go ahead and build require IcedTea.
I understand that, but it would surely be better in this case to get
the fix into libgcj. It's not particularly difficult to do, and
surely we can be allowed the short time it would take to get the fix
in, and then the package would run everywhere. Sure, it's tempting to
take the easy road, but in this case it's not hugely difficult to do
the right thing.
Yes, I'm working on a fix for GNU Classpath. However, understand that it does
take a non-trivial amount of time to get a libgcj fix into Fedora, through the
GNU Classpath -> gcc HEAD -> Red Hat gcc branch -> Fedora Rawhide chain --
several days at a minimum. I'd rather not hold up Sander's progress waiting for
the fix to land.
Tom
--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
11-26-2007, 08:45 PM
Sander Hoentjen
Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:09 -0500, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Thomas Fitzsimmons writes:
> > > Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it doesn't
> > > > compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this go into fedora?
> > >
> > > During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build
> > > requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was that
> > > packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on the base
> > > Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64) without requiring
> > > external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant packages had to run on
> > > ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9, IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter
> > > should suffice. So while ideally the package would build on both,
> > > pragmatically I'd say go ahead and build require IcedTea.
> >
> > I understand that, but it would surely be better in this case to get
> > the fix into libgcj. It's not particularly difficult to do, and
> > surely we can be allowed the short time it would take to get the fix
> > in, and then the package would run everywhere. Sure, it's tempting to
> > take the easy road, but in this case it's not hugely difficult to do
> > the right thing.
>
> Yes, I'm working on a fix for GNU Classpath. However, understand that it does
> take a non-trivial amount of time to get a libgcj fix into Fedora, through the
> GNU Classpath -> gcc HEAD -> Red Hat gcc branch -> Fedora Rawhide chain --
> several days at a minimum. I'd rather not hold up Sander's progress waiting for
> the fix to land.
>
Thanks for your concern, but for me it is no problem. Tomorrow I will go
ahead and submit the package for review. It will probably take some time
before it is approved anyway. The question that remains is will this fix
ever go into F8, if not I would still have a problem.
I do like this solution better, so again I can be patient.
Sander
--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
11-27-2007, 09:35 AM
Andrew Haley
Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj
Thomas Fitzsimmons writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Thomas Fitzsimmons writes:
> > > Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it
> > > > doesn't compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this
> > > > go into fedora?
> > >
> > > During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build
> > > requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was
> > > that packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on
> > > the base Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64)
> > > without requiring external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant
> > > packages had to run on ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9,
> > > IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter should suffice. So while
> > > ideally the package would build on both, pragmatically I'd say
> > > go ahead and build require IcedTea.
> >
> > I understand that, but it would surely be better in this case to get
> > the fix into libgcj. It's not particularly difficult to do, and
> > surely we can be allowed the short time it would take to get the fix
> > in, and then the package would run everywhere. Sure, it's tempting to
> > take the easy road, but in this case it's not hugely difficult to do
> > the right thing.
>
> Yes, I'm working on a fix for GNU Classpath. However, understand
> that it does take a non-trivial amount of time to get a libgcj fix
> into Fedora, through the GNU Classpath -> gcc HEAD -> Red Hat gcc
> branch -> Fedora Rawhide chain -- several days at a minimum. I'd
> rather not hold up Sander's progress waiting for the fix to land.
OK, that's fair, but it's going to be *really* easy to let things in
Classpath slide. I am going to keep on top of this: apart from ppc
issues, there are also the secondary architectures ARM, IA-64, and
SPARC. I'd like to keep gcj going in good shape until we have a
reasonable portability story for OpenJDK.
Andrew.
--
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
11-27-2007, 11:31 AM
Mario Torre
Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj
Il giorno mar, 27/11/2007 alle 10.35 +0000, Andrew Haley ha scritto:
> OK, that's fair, but it's going to be *really* easy to let things in
> Classpath slide. I am going to keep on top of this: apart from ppc
> issues, there are also the secondary architectures ARM, IA-64, and
> SPARC. I'd like to keep gcj going in good shape until we have a
> reasonable portability story for OpenJDK.
>
> Andrew.
Please, support open standards:
http://opendocumentfellowship.org/petition/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
Fedora java packaging, icedtea vs gcj
