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

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-14-2008, 09:35 PM
"Jerry James"
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

I've just been looking at bug 262401 [1] to see what I need to do to
update it to the new Java packaging guidelines. I have 2 new
questions about the guidelines.

First, the guidelines say that I must both Requires and Build-Requires
jpackage-utils. This bit of code needs nothing in jpackage-utils that
I can discern. It has no external dependencies, doesn't ship with any
binary blobs, etc. The guidelines say must, so I'll do it, but what
is the rationale?

Second, the GCJ guidelines say, "For Fedora versions < 8, no JDK was
available other than GCJ so GCJ AOT bits MUST be present." This
presents a problem for the package in question, because it consists of
annotations only. They are Java 1.5 annotations, so the GCJ in F7 can
produce the needed class files. But there is no actual code to
compile, so there is nothing for the GCJ AOT bits to do. Can an
exception be granted to annotation-only packages (not that there are
likely to be many of those)?

References:
[1] This is one of the last two prerequisites for findbugs [2]. The
other is 285551.
[2] http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-14-2008, 09:46 PM
Lubomir Kundrak
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 15:35 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> I've just been looking at bug 262401 [1] to see what I need to do to
> update it to the new Java packaging guidelines. I have 2 new
> questions about the guidelines.
>
> First, the guidelines say that I must both Requires and Build-Requires
> jpackage-utils. This bit of code needs nothing in jpackage-utils that
> I can discern. It has no external dependencies, doesn't ship with any
> binary blobs, etc. The guidelines say must, so I'll do it, but what
> is the rationale?

It contains directories you install into, including /usr/share/java.

> Second, the GCJ guidelines say, "For Fedora versions < 8, no JDK was
> available other than GCJ so GCJ AOT bits MUST be present." This
> presents a problem for the package in question, because it consists of
> annotations only. They are Java 1.5 annotations, so the GCJ in F7 can
> produce the needed class files. But there is no actual code to
> compile, so there is nothing for the GCJ AOT bits to do. Can an
> exception be granted to annotation-only packages (not that there are
> likely to be many of those)?

I'd say you can safely ignore this and do what your common sense advises
you to do. But I might be wrong

--
Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-15-2008, 07:28 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

Le Lun 14 avril 2008 23:35, Jerry James a écrit :
> I've just been looking at bug 262401 [1] to see what I need to do to
> update it to the new Java packaging guidelines. I have 2 new
> questions about the guidelines.
>
> First, the guidelines say that I must both Requires and Build-Requires
> jpackage-utils. This bit of code needs nothing in jpackage-utils that
> I can discern. It has no external dependencies, doesn't ship with any
> binary blobs, etc. The guidelines say must, so I'll do it, but what
> is the rationale?
>
You need at least the standard java directories and the associated rpm
macros. They're provided by jpp-utils

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-15-2008, 09:56 AM
Andrew Haley
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

Jerry James wrote:
> I've just been looking at bug 262401 [1] to see what I need to do to
> update it to the new Java packaging guidelines. I have 2 new
> questions about the guidelines.
>
> First, the guidelines say that I must both Requires and Build-Requires
> jpackage-utils. This bit of code needs nothing in jpackage-utils that
> I can discern. It has no external dependencies, doesn't ship with any
> binary blobs, etc. The guidelines say must, so I'll do it, but what
> is the rationale?
>
> Second, the GCJ guidelines say, "For Fedora versions < 8, no JDK was
> available other than GCJ so GCJ AOT bits MUST be present." This
> presents a problem for the package in question, because it consists of
> annotations only. They are Java 1.5 annotations, so the GCJ in F7 can
> produce the needed class files. But there is no actual code to
> compile, so there is nothing for the GCJ AOT bits to do. Can an
> exception be granted to annotation-only packages (not that there are
> likely to be many of those)?

Amazing -- I never even imagined that such a thing as an annotation-only
package might exist! The guidelines are intended to allow reasonable
people to interpret them sensibly. In this case, AOT-compiling wouldn't
hurt but wouldn't be of much benefit, so I don't think it matters.

Andrew.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-15-2008, 03:14 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

Andrew Haley wrote:

Jerry James wrote:

I've just been looking at bug 262401 [1] to see what I need to do to
update it to the new Java packaging guidelines. I have 2 new
questions about the guidelines.

First, the guidelines say that I must both Requires and Build-Requires
jpackage-utils. This bit of code needs nothing in jpackage-utils that
I can discern. It has no external dependencies, doesn't ship with any
binary blobs, etc. The guidelines say must, so I'll do it, but what
is the rationale?

Second, the GCJ guidelines say, "For Fedora versions < 8, no JDK was
available other than GCJ so GCJ AOT bits MUST be present." This
presents a problem for the package in question, because it consists of
annotations only. They are Java 1.5 annotations, so the GCJ in F7 can
produce the needed class files. But there is no actual code to
compile, so there is nothing for the GCJ AOT bits to do. Can an
exception be granted to annotation-only packages (not that there are
likely to be many of those)?


Amazing -- I never even imagined that such a thing as an annotation-only
package might exist! The guidelines are intended to allow reasonable
people to interpret them sensibly. In this case, AOT-compiling wouldn't
hurt but wouldn't be of much benefit, so I don't think it matters.

Andrew, if you could propose some wording changes to the Guidelines for
this it would be most appreciated. Knowing what an annotation is and
that this is a sensible tactic will help reviewers who are unfamiliar
with java to review packages of interest to all.


-Toshio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-15-2008, 03:53 PM
"Jerry James"
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:
> You need at least the standard java directories and the associated rpm
> macros. They're provided by jpp-utils

Thanks to you and Lubomir for answering this question.
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-15-2008, 03:55 PM
"Jerry James"
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> Amazing -- I never even imagined that such a thing as an annotation-only
> package might exist! The guidelines are intended to allow reasonable
> people to interpret them sensibly. In this case, AOT-compiling wouldn't
> hurt but wouldn't be of much benefit, so I don't think it matters.

Okay, thanks. For what it's worth, since the last time I checked,
findbugs has picked up another external dependency, on yet another
annotation-only package. Take a look here:

http://jsr-305.googlecode.com/

I'll work on getting it packaged up. My initial attempt at building
this code triggered a null pointer exception in javadoc!
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-15-2008, 09:39 PM
Matej Cepl
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

On 2008-04-14, 21:35 GMT, Jerry James wrote:
> Can an exception be granted to annotation-only packages (not
> that there are likely to be many of those)?

Or ugly solution -- wait two months ;-) Then all supported
Fedoras will have JDK.

No, I am not serious.

Matěj

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-15-2008, 10:29 PM
Lubomir Kundrak
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 23:39 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 2008-04-14, 21:35 GMT, Jerry James wrote:
> > Can an exception be granted to annotation-only packages (not
> > that there are likely to be many of those)?
>
> Or ugly solution -- wait two months ;-) Then all supported
> Fedoras will have JDK.
>
> No, I am not serious.

Why not? Getting rid of legacy cruft sounds like an brilliantly elegant
solution to me. But probably not applicable here, as GCJ doesn't really
fall into that category, given it still outperforms OpenJDK by the
factor of 10 on ppc.

--
Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-15-2008, 10:53 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default More Java guidelines questions

Lubomir Kundrak wrote:


Why not? Getting rid of legacy cruft sounds like an brilliantly elegant
solution to me. But probably not applicable here, as GCJ doesn't really
fall into that category, given it still outperforms OpenJDK by the
factor of 10 on ppc.


If you can find something it will run besides whatever benchmark you
used for that measurement... And will OpenJDK run OpenNMS?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:19 AM.

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