Bug#526489: Fwd: Re: Bug#526489: Time to orphan eclipse? (Bug#526489: eclipse: should this package be orphaned?)
Forwarded from -devel -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: Bug#526489: Time to orphan eclipse? (Bug#526489: eclipse: should this package be orphaned?) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 From: Ana Guerrero a...@debian.org To: Jerry Haltom was...@larvalstage.net, Michael Koch konque...@gmx.de, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org, Stephan Michels step...@apache.org On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:40:49AM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: I filed the quoted report almost 3 weeks ago. Resending to people listed as eclipse uploaders in case they did not get it. Third and last warning, I will orphan eclipse next saturday (20th June), so if somebody from the Java team is interested, please step up now. Usually, I would have orphaned the package already, but I was hoping from somebody from the team take over it. Sadly, I did not get a word from any of the uploaders (a i am not longer interested email would have been nice) or from somebody else from the team. For the record, even if the last version we have in Debian is 3.2.2, there was some work done (from one year ago) in the SVN for the version 3.4: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-java/trunk/eclipse/debian/?op=logrev=0sc=0isdir=1 On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 04:33:20PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: Package: eclipse Version: 3.2.2-6.1 Severity: important After being hit by #507536 (merged with #511713, #515747) and read http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=507536#104 I have been looking at the status of eclipse in Debian. Eclipse's packaging is under the umbrella of the Debian Java Maintainers, but it is currently lacking of a main maintainer. Latest maintainer upload was almost a year ago (8 May 2008), and the package has missed a few upstream releases (Current version is 3.4.2) since then. I am cc'ing all the people listed in the uploaders field, are you still interested in maintaining eclipse? Ana Original bug report at: http://bugs.debian.org/526489 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org --- ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#395400: java-package: please Provides: jar for the sdk packages
Hi On Friday 27 October 2006 05:26, Jon Dowland wrote: I have a program which requires an implementation of jar at build-time. The Build-Depends line is non-trivial because nobody specifies a jar virtual package. Any reason you can't just depend on fastjar? Package: fastjar Uncompressed Size: 225k Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.6-6), zlib1g (= 1:1.2.1) Description: Jar creation utility Replacement for Suns .jar creation program. It is written in C instead of java and is tons faster. HTH Andrew V. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#388617: tomcat5.5: fails to start
On Friday 22 September 2006 20:58, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: Shobhit Jindal wrote: [...] /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.08: tomcat5.5. It's a strange location... /usr/lib/jvm is used a couple debian packages on my mixed testing/unstable system. Seems a fairly logical place to group jvm implementations. Better having them scattered all over /usr/lib IMO. Note that kaffe, jam, sablevm, blackdown debs and various sun and ibm java-package .debs (built with an old java-package) are also installed, scattered over /usr/lib. $ ls -al /usr/lib/jvm/ total 112 drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 2006-09-18 06:00 . drwxr-xr-x 211 root root 86016 2006-09-19 18:11 .. drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 2006-06-15 15:33 cacao drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 2006-05-30 01:43 java-1.4.2-gcj-4.1-1.4.2.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root23 2006-07-18 13:10 java-1.5.0-sun - java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.07 drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 4096 2006-07-18 13:10 java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.07 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2361 2006-07-06 11:10 .java-1.5.0-sun.jinfo lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root26 2006-09-18 06:00 java-gcj - java-1.4.2-gcj-4.1-1.4.2.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 749 2006-09-07 01:46 .java-gcj.jinfo cheers Andrew V. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: Java 6.0 Snapshot Installation
On Thursday 13 July 2006 03:04, Stephan Bardubitzki wrote: Dear Friends, my OS is Ubuntu6.06 and for development and testing purpose I need to have the latest Java 6.0 snapshot as the default Java version. There are a couple of user submitted patches at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=322843 HTH Andrew V. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#359780: Cannot install libasm-java on sarge
[resending because I sent this to the wrong address] On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:25, Tobias Herzke wrote: Aldous D. Penaranda wrote: As I have mentioned in my email, libasm-java is in contrib and you need non-free software for it. Please try making a .deb from Sun's JVM and install that for groovy/libasm-java to work. I have no clue how to do this. Use the make-jpkg command from java-package to convert a sun/ibm/blackdown JRE or SDK self-extracting archive to a debian package. HTH Andrew V. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#348725: java-package: Missing dependency: ibm-java2-sdk-50 depends on libstdc++5.
Package: java-package Version: 0.27 Severity: normal The jre included in ibm java 5 sdk seems to have a dependency on libstdc++. java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: fontmanager (libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory) Installing libstdc++5 fixes the problem. Andrew V. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-686 Locale: LANG=en_AU, LC_CTYPE=en_AU (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages java-package depends on: ii coreutils 5.2.1-2.1 The GNU core utilities ii debhelper 5.0.10 helper programs for debian/rules ii fakeroot 1.5.6 Gives a fake root environment ii unzip 5.52-6 De-archiver for .zip files java-package recommends no packages. -- no debconf information ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: Bug#347942: java-package: Increase alternative priority over java-gcj-compat*
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:17, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: Comments below. Blair Zajac wrote: Package: java-package Version: 0.27 Severity: normal Tags: patch Barry, what do you think about this? tag it wontfix? add a note in the README.Debian? close it? add a note in the Debian Java FAQ? If you close it, you'll just get more bug reports. As Blair says below, many of the people who use java-package will want/expect sun's/ibm's java as the default system java. The priority of the java-gcj-compat* packages is 1040 which is larger than the priority of the packages created with java-package (313-315). It appears that if people take the effort to build private .debs of these non-free Java packages, then they should get priority over the other free packages that come in the main Debian distribution, otherwise, the non-free Java's are not used by default. Debian is about free software ;-) non-free software should not have a bigger priority than free software... I ran this in the java-package-0.27 source directory to increase the priorities by a factor of 10 and built my private version of java-package to give Sun's JDK priority. perl -w -i -p -e 's/priority=(\d+)/priority=$+0/' */install A better solution might be to add an alternatives-priority option to make-jpkg. Andrew V. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#342341: eclipse: too many unneeded dependencies
Hi everyone. [Erwan, this mail is for the eclipse maintainers. I've kept you cc'ed to keep you in the discussion.] On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:32, Erwan David wrote: And that doies not explain th gnome dependency, which is heavier, and tottaly inadequate and, I repeat DANGEROUS. I have an eclipse.org binary release (3.1.1) unpacked in ~/bin/eclipse on my sarge install. A quick search shows that this includes private libraries. $ find /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/ |grep '\.so\.\|\.so$' /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.cdt.core.linux.x86_3.0.0/os/linux/x86/libpty.so /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.cdt.core.linux.x86_3.0.0/os/linux/x86/libspawner.so /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/configuration/org.eclipse.osgi/bundles/33/1/.cp/libswt-pi-gtk-3139.so /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/configuration/org.eclipse.osgi/bundles/33/1/.cp/libswt-gtk-3139.so /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/configuration/org.eclipse.osgi/bundles/33/1/.cp/libswt-gnome-gtk-3139.so /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/configuration/org.eclipse.osgi/bundles/83/1/.cp/os/linux/x86/libupdate.so /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/configuration/org.eclipse.osgi/bundles/10/1/.cp/os/linux/x86/libcore_3_1_0.so /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/libcairo.so.1 (Obviously this is something that the debian eclipse packages don't do). A quick ldd shows that the private libraries upstream ships _are_ linked against gnome libs. ldd /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/configuration/org.eclipse.osgi/bundles/33/1/.cp/libswt-gnome-gtk-3139.so| grep gnome libgnomevfs-2.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgnomevfs-2.so.0 (0x4001b000) libgnome-2.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgnome-2.so.0 (0x4007d000) libgnomeui-2.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0 (0x40092000) libgnomecanvas-2.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgnomecanvas-2.so.0 (0x4067b000) libgnome-keyring.so.0 = /usr/lib/libgnome-keyring.so.0 (0x40ac) a quick google search site:eclipse.org libgnome reveals 36 hits. The following 2 (at least) support the argument that the gnome libraries are (or at least were) used upstream. https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?format=multipleid=79268 http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.swt/Eclipse%20SWT%20PI/motif/library/Attic/gnome.c?rev=1.11 However it ain't that simple. There has recently been a thread about unused library dependencies [1], [2]. The sarge ldd command does not have the -u option. Therefore I tried ldd -u on ubuntu. ldd -u /home/andrew/bin/eclipse/configuration/org.eclipse.osgi/bundles/33/1/.cp/libswt-gnome-gtk-3139.so Unused direct dependencies: /usr/lib/libgnomevfs-2.so.0 /usr/lib/libgnome-2.so.0 /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0 At this point I'm out of my depth. I don't know how to determine whether (upstreams) libswt-gnome-gtk-3139.so actually _should_ be linked against gnome libs. Since I'm running sarge, it haven't tried ldd on the debian swt libs. I did try the following. 1. Rename /usr/lib/libgnomevfs-2.so.0, /usr/lib/libgnome-2.so.0, /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0. 2. Reboot. 3. kde apps all seem fine. gedit fails needing libgnomeui-2.so.0. eclipse seems fine. Confirmed basic open, edit, save functionality works. eclipse help also works (uses mozilla-firefox, but this is what /etc/alternatives/mozilla points to). I did not test any other functionality. Important eclipse functionality could easily be broken. Hence it seems that eclipse does not need gnome libs for basic functionality. The above test doesn't mean that other swt apps don't use functionality from gnome libs of course. Andrew V. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/11/msg00016.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg01427.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg01432.html ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#342341: eclipse: too many unneeded dependencies
Hi I'm a debian user, not a debian developer, but I feel the need to chime in here. On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:36, Erwan David wrote: So you want to oblige people to use the pile of crap that gnome is. MY freedom is also to NOT use software I think is ill designed and is a danger. So don't use whatever you don't want. If you feel this strongly, and can't convince the maintainers to relax the dependencies, use equivs to create a fake package that provides gnome-mime-data, mozilla-browser etc. or download the debian source package, make whatever changes you need, and rebuild. or download the the debian packages and bypass dependencies by installing with dpkg -i --force-depends. (Be warned that package managers will try to fix the broken dependencies. Whilst fine for a quick and dirty short term trial, equivs is a better longterm solution. Using either method to mess with vital packages will cause breakage. or download eclipse from upstream and install to ~/bin or /usr/local . I'm currently running eclipse (downloaded from upstream, and unpacked into ~/bin) on ubuntu breezy. When I tried the pre-release ubuntu packages, I had issues installing eclipse-plugins, and reverted using the upstream binaries. This works fine and is easy to update. Indeed, unless you are familiar with tricks like equivs and dpkg -i --force-depends, I'd recommend running stable rather than testing/unstable, and installing eclipse (from upstream) either to ~/bin or /usr/local. You deny me this right. And you're a liar, I can download upstream eclipse without using mozilla (you oblige people to install obsolete sqoftware by the way..) nor gnome. Please moderate your language. Getting the dependencies eased requires convincing the package maintainers that eclipse and swt apps work fine without the gnome dependencies. That requires a constructive dialog. This is free software. You're not obliged to do anything. You can do whatever you like. You're free to ignore this email. You also free to try some of the suggestions I've listed above. No-one has denied you any rights. They have just tried to make sure that people who install the debian eclipse package, get a fully functional eclipse, without having to manually chase dependencies. (Debian policy requires this. It is a large part of what makes debian such a pleasure to use.) Imposing gnome for the mime stuff is either a lie or the proof of blatant incompetency. Mime is handled through the mailcap and mime.types definitions and the debian package to handle them is mime-support. I'm sure upstream will be happy to be called liars or incompetents. Much of the dependency 'bloat' comes from libswt3.1-gtk-java (the java side of SWT), which depends on mozilla _or_ mozilla-firefox, and libswt3.1-gtk-jni (the native side of the toolkit). libswt3.1-gtk-jni depends on (partial list) libcairo2 - The Cairo 2D vector graphics library libgnome2-0 - The GNOME 2 library - runtime files libgnomeui-0 - The GNOME 2 libraries (User Interface) - runtime files libgnomevfs2-0 - The GNOME virtual file-system library (runtime files) libgtk2.0-0 - The GTK+ graphical user interface library The gnome libs depend on ... (surprise) more gnome libs. Note that this is an SWT upstream design issue. SWT upstream choose to use the gtk library for native widgets. They also choose to use gnome libraries for some functionality. The eclipse file-open dialog is the same widget used by native gnome programs. This includes seemless access to cd-roms that gnome has automounted. As mentioned elsewhere, SWT uses mozilla or firefox for an embedded browser widget. PS: I was evaluating debian for the desktops at my work. I must now say that I cannot suggest it for the developers, we'll stick with other dsitributions which let people free to choose not to use some software. One of the strengths of debian is it package management. 99 times out of 100 installed package just work, without having to install extra packages to satisfy dependencies, or to allow normal functionality. The other 1% of the time, it is a RC bug. If the package maintainers drop needed dependencies, they'll just end up having to add them. from your initial bug report. Which means 195 MB on disk... Eclipse is big. The upstream download is 99.3 MB. My 'upstream install' (including cdt + subclipse) is 155 MB. This includes private versions of some of the libswt-gtk and libswt-gnome-gtk which are listed above. eclipse does not need gnome, so there is a dependency problem on this side. Same thing with mozilla-browser. In any case this makes the package uninstallable here (no gnome). It not really pulling in gnome (desktop), just some of the gtk/gnome libs. Other linux desktop distributions may simply include these some these libs (perhaps built without optional dependencies) as part of a standard install. Try searching for libgtk on your old system.
