Bug#775010: libmaven-archiver-java: please allow pom.properties' date to be deterministic
Yeah, DEB_BUILD_DATE makes me less uneasy, too.
I've updated the patch to replace the line. This assumes
that it is present; would be great if this kind of thing
was specified. It's hard to verify the assumption as the
date comes out in locale format.
From 4462124973f36a06d2e8695f789c4bc5beb8eaff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris West (Faux) g...@goeswhere.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:48:22 +
Subject: [PATCH] honour DEB_BUILD_DATE when generating pom.properties (lines)
---
.../apache/maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtil.java | 70 +-
.../maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtilTest.java | 24
2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 src/test/java/org/apache/maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtilTest.java
diff --git a/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtil.java b/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtil.java
index 5e0a41b..e294419 100644
--- a/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtil.java
+++ b/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtil.java
@@ -19,13 +19,21 @@ package org.apache.maven.archiver;
* under the License.
*/
+import java.io.BufferedWriter;
import java.io.File;
import java.io.FileInputStream;
import java.io.FileOutputStream;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.io.OutputStream;
+import java.io.OutputStreamWriter;
+import java.io.StringWriter;
+import java.text.ParseException;
+import java.text.SimpleDateFormat;
+import java.util.Arrays;
+import java.util.Date;
import java.util.Properties;
+import java.util.regex.Pattern;
import org.apache.maven.project.MavenProject;
import org.codehaus.plexus.archiver.Archiver;
@@ -85,7 +93,7 @@ public class PomPropertiesUtil
OutputStream os = new FileOutputStream( outputFile );
try
{
-properties.store( os, GENERATED_BY_MAVEN );
+storeWithCustomTimestamp( properties, os, GENERATED_BY_MAVEN );
os.close(); // stream is flushed but not closed by Properties.store()
os = null;
}
@@ -95,6 +103,66 @@ public class PomPropertiesUtil
}
}
+private static Date findBuildDate() {
+final String envName = DEB_BUILD_DATE;
+final String envVariable = System.getenv(envName);
+if (null == envVariable) {
+return null;
+}
+
+try {
+return new SimpleDateFormat(EEE, dd MMM HH:mm:ss zzz).parse(envVariable);
+} catch (ParseException e) {
+throw new IllegalStateException(maven-archiver: + envName + not in recognised format, e);
+}
+}
+
+/**
+ * Replace the date in the file with the specified date, and sort the properties
+ *
+ * @param lines line 1: comment, line 2: date, line 3 onwards: properties
+ */
+static void mangle(String[] lines, Date buildDate) {
+lines[1] = # + buildDate.toString();
+Arrays.sort(lines, 2, lines.length);
+}
+
+private void storeWithCustomTimestamp(Properties properties, OutputStream os, String comment) throws IOException {
+final String[] lines = propertyFileLines(properties, comment);
+
+final Date buildDate = findBuildDate();
+if (null != buildDate) {
+mangle(lines, buildDate);
+}
+
+writeLines(os, lines);
+}
+
+private static String[] propertyFileLines(Properties properties, String comment) throws IOException {
+final StringWriter stringWriter = new StringWriter();
+try {
+properties.store(stringWriter, comment);
+} finally {
+stringWriter.close();
+}
+
+return stringWriter.toString()
+.split(Pattern.quote(System.getProperty(line.separator)));
+}
+
+private static void writeLines(OutputStream os, String[] lines) throws IOException {
+final BufferedWriter writer = new BufferedWriter(new OutputStreamWriter(os, ISO-8859-1));
+try {
+for (String line : lines) {
+writer.write(line);
+writer.newLine();
+}
+} finally {
+writer.flush();
+writer.close();
+}
+}
+
/**
* Creates the pom.properties file.
*/
diff --git a/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtilTest.java b/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtilTest.java
new file mode 100644
index 000..b051b2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/archiver/PomPropertiesUtilTest.java
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+package org.apache.maven.archiver;
+
+import junit.framework.TestCase;
+
+import java.util.Arrays;
+import java.util.Date;
+
+import static org.apache.maven.archiver.PomPropertiesUtil.mangle;
+
+public class PomPropertiesUtilTest extends TestCase {
+
+public void testMangle() {
+final Date date = new Date(1);
+final String[] input = {#foo bar, # + new
Re: Updating Eclipse
On 2015-01-09 20:21, Markus Koschany wrote: Hi Pascal, On 09.01.2015 19:43, Pascal Rapicault wrote: Hi, Hi Pascal, (NB: Please CC me explicit on replies as I am not subscribed to debian-java) For reference, I am more than happy to provide advice and technical aid where possible. But I am not able to be a co-maintainer of eclipse. My name is Pascal Rapicault. I'm a long time committer on the Eclipse platform, and I've recently been tasked by Ericsson to: 1 - bring new versions of Eclipse to debian 2 - make sure the experience of using eclipse on debian is good (from an installation pov) 3 - make sure the user can get multiple versions of Eclipse installed at the same time but not all merged (e.g. IDE for C/C++, IDE for Java, etc.) 4 - find a way to streamline the push of Eclipse to debian Thank your for your interest in Eclipse and the state of Java packages in Debian. [...] Indeed thanks for your interest. And thanks to Ericsson as well. :) I recently worked on a mechanism that creates debian packages from an eclipse distro as a single package (all the jars and other files are in one package) and is also able to collect the dependencies on native packages. This works quite well since it makes it easy for the users to get a functional starting point (IDE for Java, IDE for C/C++) that they can customize, and allows multiple IDEs to be installed separately. Now a couple questions: - Would the package I describe above be suitable to be made available in the main debian repo? (I assume no, but I may as well check :)) I strongly suspect the answer to be no as well. Debian is not really that much into fat packages, static linking or the strictly equals dependencies (outside binaries built from same source package). - What are the reasons why Eclipse is no longer updated, technical, political, volunteers? I suspect mostly lacking volunteers willing to provide a debian package under the technical and political requirements of Debian. - What are the requirements to package Eclipse for debian? I believe Markus already touched on some of these. I only have an incomplete list. None that some of my remarks / follow comments here are based on my time as Debian maintainer of eclipse (mostly active during 2009-2011ish). Anyhow: * DFSG compatible licenses. Here Eclipse general excels with its IP and rigid handling of copyright/licenses. * Rebuild things from source. Some of it works, except for the bootstrap problem. Namely to compile eclipse you (used to?) require eclipse. * No / Avoid bundling of libraries and avoid static linking. * Rebuild everything *without internet*. Mostly an issue with maven. In my time, Eclipse did not have an issue here, but I heard they considered moving to maven or so? * Debian generally tries to avoid = $version dependencies, which are fairly common in the Java world (if I am not mistaken). * The package must be policy compliant[1]. That is a long read, so I would not start here. For reference, the current eclipse package is mostly good enough. - I would recommend getting a working compile first and then worry about policy compliance afterwards. - What are the most painful aspects of this process? [...] Again note that my remarks here are based from my experience and may have changed since 2011. Hopefully you will find it easier - your time as Eclipse committer might make a lot of things easier for you. Also please note that some of these issues are not specific to Debian (e.g. Fedora have similar concerns). * Eclipse upstream and Debian had different ideas on certain things like how much should be rebuilt from source. - Debian: Everything *must* be rebuildable and everything *should* be be rebuilt during a package build. - Eclipse: Automatic rebuilds are /sometimes/ an afterthought or not done at all (e.g. because they consume the official binaries of XYZ). * Providing patches to Eclipse upstream was generally difficult. I suspect you will it a lot easier here, being already integrated upstream. - My problems were mostly I find a problem at X, where do I file a bug (i.e. which component maintains X)? - During most of my involvement, I had to rely on others having time to commit my patches. I did manage to become a committer at some point, but at that time I had mostly burned out. * The bootstrap problem. To have compile eclipse version X, you generally need(ed?) eclipse X to pre-build some build files. - Some people from Fedora started an eclipse-build project[2] to solve the bootstrap problem and ease automatic building of eclipse (from scratch). - The bootstrap problem is/was solved by pre-compiling some build scripts, which were used to bootstrap enough of eclipse for it to generate build scripts. Here after everything is rebuilt just to prove everything is buildable. This is the
javatools 0.48 MIGRATED to testing
FYI: The status of the javatools source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 0.47 Current version: 0.48 -- This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will receive later changes on the next day. See https://release.debian.org/testing-watch/ for more information. __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#775010: libmaven-archiver-java: please allow pom.properties' date to be deterministic
Le 10/01/2015 17:54, Chris West a écrit : I've updated the patch to replace the line. This assumes that it is present; would be great if this kind of thing was specified. It's hard to verify the assumption as the date comes out in locale format. Thank you for the update. It's safe to assume the date always follow the comment specified, the Javadoc for the store() method states: Next, a comment line is always written, consisting of an ASCII # character, the current date and time (as if produced by the toString method of Date for the current time), and a line separator as generated by the Writer. The call to Arrays.sort() isn't necessary but it doesn't hurt. __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#773805: liblucene4-java: Incomplete poms installed in /usr/share/maven-repo
On 01/07/2015 10:41 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2015-01-08 05:17, tony mancill wrote: [...] Hello Hilko, Emmanuel, I'm taking a look at this, but in the interest of the jessie release, I wanted to ask Emmanuel whether it would be okay to decrease the severity. We have a number of other packages with missing or incomplete poms, and propose that we discuss maven metadata for all Java library packages as a release goal for jessie + 1. Otherwise, the package will be removed soonish (February 5th). https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lucene4 Thanks, tony [...] Hi, If the bug is RC on its own, but you believe it is irrelevant for the Jessie release, the correct option would be to have it ignored (please file a bug against release.debian.org for that). Mind you, the assumption is that the bug is in fact RC. If not, the release team will probably recommend downgrading it instead. If the bug only prevents new packages from being build (i.e. packages not already in Jessie/sid), it /sounds/ like it might not be RC after all (maybe important). However, please keep in mind that my answer is solely based on the above mail. Hi Niels, Thank you for the guidance. In the case of #773805 (maven pom), I do believe that it's not RC from a severity standpoint. I think #773829 might fall into the same category, although I do have a patch and will be uploading a new package with just this build change tomorrow morning. Cheers, tony signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Processed: tagging 773829, owner 773829
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 773829 + pending Bug #773829 [src:lucene4] lucene4: JavaCC parsers are not generated during the build Added tag(s) pending. owner 773829 tmanc...@debian.org Bug #773829 [src:lucene4] lucene4: JavaCC parsers are not generated during the build Owner recorded as tmanc...@debian.org. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 773829: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=773829 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
