jekyll and sdoc are development dependencies to generate the website, you won't need them.
Thanks for the offer! I'll happily work with you on this. Thanks, Antoine On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:19, kristian <m.krist...@web.de> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Antoine Toulme > <anto...@lunar-ocean.com> wrote: > > OK, I'm in touch with the debian team, and I'll see what it takes to > sneak > > buildr as part of the gentoo distribution, before I push this further. > > If you are involved with gentoo, > no > > did I write ruby ebuilds for gentoo before - yes, there are one or two > or three I laid my hands on and I had a tool to convert gemspec to > ebuild. so if I remember it right it was rather straight forward. > > but I dump gentoo a year ago - it was too time consuming for me. but > after this email thread, let me see if I am able to setup a minimal > gentoo virtual box. > > I looked at the deps of buildr and most of them have already ebuilds. > missing bits are Antwrap, json_pure, jekyll, sdoc. > > hope you know that you asked a maven guy to help you with buildr ;-) > yes, I see where to steal the time for that . . . regards Kristian > > > I'd be happy to discuss with you on the > > best way to make buildr happen there. > > Thanks, > > Antoine > > > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 04:52, kristian <m.krist...@web.de> wrote: > >> > >> as a jruby user I need better artifact as there are now. > >> > >> as a jruby user I would like to install jruby from the OS and here I > >> see only gentoo up to date. > >> > >> the moment there a gems or other application in need of jruby it must > >> come through the OS. putting buildr on top of jruby will just increase > >> the mountain to climb for distributions - BUT maybe I am wrong and > >> buildr build is easier to understand and with this easier to adopt ;-) > >> > >> just needed to bring the attention to the OS I am working with which > >> has no jruby-1.5.x yet. and any application using jruby has to wait > >> until jruby is part of the OS. > >> > >> regards Kristian > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Alistair Bush <ali_b...@gentoo.org> > >> wrote: > >> >> Hi Kristian, > >> >> > >> >> actually some Fedora folks contacted me and I think there is a bundle > >> >> for > >> >> Buildr now since they use it for Candlespin. > >> >> I don't know if there is a bundle for Debian but I'd be glad to make > it > >> >> happen. > >> >> > >> >> Our installation instructions are probably outdated - we can work on > >> >> that, > >> >> and having a Debian package would certainly help. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, we can provide a javadoc bundle and a source bundle, and we can > >> >> push > >> >> them next to the jar on the Maven repo. We don't generate the > checksums > >> >> yet, but I would certainly add this in a near future. > >> >> > >> >> As to your final question on how to build jruby without jruby, my > >> >> answer > >> >> earlier was probably unclear. > >> >> You download this file ( > >> >> > >> >> > http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/71279/buildr-all-in-one-1.4.0.tar.gz > ) > >> >> , unpack it, and use the buildr package script there. > >> >> You can also install Buildr with MRI, but that's more work. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Lets get this straight, bundling jruby with buildr still means you > are > >> > using > >> > jruby. From a package manager perspective the first thing I would > need > >> > to do > >> > is replace jruby with a system version. If that isn't possible > because > >> > jruby > >> > is built with buildr then buildr would need to work with MRI otherwise > >> > jruby > >> > and builr would be impossible to package. Just because you provide > >> > jruby > >> > doesn't break the circular dependency. > >> > > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> > >> >> Antoine > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 19:24, kristian <m.krist...@web.de> wrote: > >> >> > hello, > >> >> > > >> >> > I have a few thoughts about jruby and why is there no jruby in > fedora > >> >> > or outdated version in ubuntu/debian - gentoo is quite impressive > >> >> > (and > >> >> > better then it was when I used gentoo myself). > >> >> > > >> >> > all these linux distributions are about dependency management. and > >> >> > when building a package there needs to be all dependent "libraries" > >> >> > already available and installed. it seems rather difficult to adopt > >> >> > the ant script in a way that ant builds from the packages of the > >> >> > distribution rather then the jars files from the code repository. > >> >> > dito > >> >> > is probably true for maven. but most big linux distributions can > >> >> > provide ant and maven more or less up-to-date. > >> >> > > >> >> > next issue I see with buildr. none of the distributions I know have > >> >> > any buildr package. > >> >> > > >> >> > and the big thing is the dependency management. and "assume" buildr > >> >> > is > >> >> > a better maven it does a lot of dependency management and here > things > >> >> > become tricky for the distributions. like debian and rubygems > >> >> > (another > >> >> > dependency management something) - debian disallows to "sudo gem > >> >> > update --system" since this would break the system consistency. > >> >> > > >> >> > the moment jruby has a build system which is not ant or maven based > >> >> > you will not see jruby in these linux distributions for a long time > >> >> > (<- my prediction). > >> >> > > >> >> > if I look how buildr wants me to install buildr on linux > >> >> > (http://buildr.apache.org/installing.html#linux) is basically > fouling > >> >> > apt or yum the packagemanagers by first replacing rubygems with a > >> >> > version which is not "known" by apt or yum and then "sudo gem > install > >> >> > .... " which might pull in even more gems which will not match what > >> >> > the package management knows. (better change the docs to a "gem > >> >> > install --user-install ..." and start to behave nice with the > >> >> > underlying OS.) > >> >> > > >> >> > anyways my wish-list for any build system would be: source + > javadocs > >> >> > artifact attached to the jruby/jruby-complete artifact so maven > based > >> >> > IDEs can use these to provide access to source + javadocs. and > >> >> > correct > >> >> > checksums (which is not the case right now for some > org.jruby.extra.* > >> >> > jars). > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Antoine Toulme > >> >> > <anto...@lunar-ocean.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > So I pick up 3 concerns: > >> >> > > 1. It has to do at least a better job than the previous build, > and > >> >> > > be > >> >> > > >> >> > easy > >> >> > > >> >> > > to adopt. > >> >> > > 2. It has to build from source. > >> >> > > 3. It depends on jruby. > >> >> > > 1. in my opinion is a no-brainer. If there is no advantage and > it's > >> >> > > hard > >> >> > > >> >> > to > >> >> > > >> >> > > play with, why bother. > >> >> > > 2. is tricky, because it sounds deceptively easy. After all, if > you > >> >> > > want > >> >> > > >> >> > to > >> >> > > >> >> > > build with buildr, you can checkout the tag and do buildr > package, > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > you'll be done with it. I'm not sure what gentoo needs > additionally > >> >> > > to > >> >> > > >> >> > make > >> >> > > >> >> > > it happen. Alistair, can you explain some more the pitfalls there > >> >> > > please > >> >> > > >> >> > ? > >> >> > > >> >> > first you need a buildr ebuild so you can use it as tool for > building > >> >> > other packages. then dissect the buildfile so the actual build uses > >> >> > the packages from Gentoo and NOT the ones from the maven repository > >> >> > or > >> >> > from the git repository. and so on and on and on. > >> >> > > >> >> > > 3. In my opinion, there is no circular dependency. Either install > >> >> > > buildr with MRI, or use our standalone integration with jruby > over > >> >> > > its > >> >> > > last release. Buildr is then available in the same way ant is, > and > >> >> > > you > >> >> > > won't > >> >> > > >> >> > see > >> >> > > >> >> > > that it's powered by jruby. > >> >> > > As long as you can build with a given combination of > jruby+buildr, > >> >> > > you > >> >> > > >> >> > won't > >> >> > > >> >> > > need to depend on either HEAD. > >> >> > > >> >> > question: how do build jruby without jruby. which is needed if you > >> >> > build an OS from source from scratch. > >> >> > > >> >> > regards Kristian > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Eventually, adding your buildr build to your > >> >> > > >> >> > > integration tests would probably help (Buildr was broken with > jruby > >> >> > > 1.5 > >> >> > > >> >> > over > >> >> > > >> >> > > the implementation of Array#detect if I remember well). > >> >> > > Buildr is very stable, we're packing changes and building an > >> >> > > integration test suite, but most of the action is going on in > >> >> > > extensions these days > >> >> > > >> >> > (at > >> >> > > >> >> > > least that's where my free time goes, sadly). > >> >> > > Overall that sounds like normal concerns, and I don't see a > >> >> > > blocker. My > >> >> > > >> >> > plan > >> >> > > >> >> > > is to contribute a buildfile, and you guys can gradually switch > to > >> >> > > Buildr > >> >> > > >> >> > if > >> >> > > >> >> > > you feel at ease with it. It's a good learning process for Buildr > >> >> > > as > >> >> > > >> >> > well. > >> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks, > >> >> > > Antoine > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 07:25, Wayne Meissner < > wmeiss...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> Those are my concerns too. For those things like jffi and jruby > >> >> > >> itself where using buildr would create a circular dependency, > >> >> > >> having > >> >> > >> buildr as an alternative is fine, just not the main build > system. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> If it could exterminate the maven vermin, it would be well worth > >> >> > >> it. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> On 13 August 2010 09:12, Charles Oliver Nutter > >> >> > >> <head...@headius.com> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > Here's my concerns: > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > * We've already started moving our build into Rake a bit by > bit, > >> >> > >> > and > >> >> > >> > the bootstrapping question becomes apparent very quickly. In > >> >> > >> > other > >> >> > >> > words, we need JRuby (or Ruby) to run Buildr/Rake, but need > >> >> > >> > Buildr/Rake to build JRuby. > >> >> > >> > * Our Ant build has been a bitch to maintain, but now that it > >> >> > >> > works > >> >> > >> > pretty much everyone can build out of the box. That's very > >> >> > >> > valuable. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > I would guess that Buildr would make our Maven nonsense > easier, > >> >> > >> > and > >> >> > >> > maybe even allow us to yank out of our src the libraries that > >> >> > >> > can be > >> >> > >> > directly fetched from Maven (like we have experimented with > >> >> > >> > using > >> >> > >> > Ivy in the past), so that's definitely a bonus. And of course > >> >> > >> > not > >> >> > >> > having to maintain the Ant script is a benefit in any case. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > I am interested in hearing other opinions. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > - Charlie > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Antoine Toulme > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > <antoine.tou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi devs, > >> >> > >> >> I would like to contribute a Buildr based build to JRuby. > >> >> > >> >> Buildr is > >> >> > >> >> a Rake-based build system that integrates well with Maven > >> >> > >> >> repositories, has a > >> >> > >> >> goal-based lifecycle that is very easy to extend and work > with. > >> >> > >> >> Buildr works on top of MRI or JRuby. > >> >> > >> >> I recently contributed a build using Buildr for jffi that > shows > >> >> > >> >> a > >> >> > >> >> drastic > >> >> > >> >> reduction of the complexity of the ant build files. > >> >> > >> >> It is currently waiting for review on jira, and there may be > >> >> > >> >> more > >> >> > > >> >> > work > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> as my > >> >> > >> >> C skills didn't allow me to finish the C compilation part: > >> >> > >> >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-4970 > >> >> > >> >> This email is meant to test the waters. Please also note I > >> >> > >> >> would > >> >> > >> >> work on the > >> >> > >> >> build system on my own as time permits, so I cannot give a > firm > >> >> > >> >> date > >> >> > > >> >> > to > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> contribute it. > >> >> > >> >> Any strong objections ? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> > >> >> Antoine > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> > - > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > >> >> > >> > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > >> >> > >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > >> >> > > >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > >> >> > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > >> > > >> > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > >> > >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > >> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > >
