Re: openoffice fun
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 04/13/05 10:32 CST: > Hi. I just wanted to let ya know I was successful using gcc-3.3.5 for > building > j2sdk and openoffice. Thanks for the report Robert. What version of J2SDK? Anything other than the new 1.5 (5.0) is what we have now. The new version compiles just fine with GCC-3.4.3, but I know that FOP for one, and I believe OpenOffice won't compile with the new JDK. I'm going to try to work out the FOP issues, as it may be some time before a new version is released. OpenOffice probably will contain fixes for the JDK-1.5 sometime soon. So, we could update BLFS to the new JDK and just put notes in the FOP and OpenOffice instructions that the 1.4.2 version of the JDK is required. I believe DJ is miles ahead of me on the JDK stuff, but I have been using the JDK-1.5 for some time now and haven't encountered any issues. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 10:37:00 up 11 days, 10:10, 3 users, load average: 0.19, 0.05, 0.01 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
On April 13, 2005 11:42 am, Randy McMurchy wrote: .. > Thanks for the report Robert. What version of J2SDK? The versions in the book, j2sdk-1_4_2, except for j2sdk-1_4_2_08-linux-i586.bin (8 instead of 7). robert -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
Randy McMurchy wrote: > I'm going to try to work out the FOP issues, as it may be some > time before a new version is released. OpenOffice probably will > contain fixes for the JDK-1.5 sometime soon. I'm not seeing any notes pointing towards a 1.1.5 at all...but looking to May for 2.0 last I heard. > > So, we could update BLFS to the new JDK and just put notes in > the FOP and OpenOffice instructions that the 1.4.2 version of > the JDK is required. > Yes this should be fine for now...but why upgrade if it'll cause problems? AFAIK, the 1.4.2 is fine for everything right now. Only people that need 1.5.0 will be devs, and they can figure it out from the previous patches or just use the binary. I'll go back into the old OOo and see if I can figure out how dmake's patch command works again for the java code there (see -source below). Of course, I could just make deltas for testing and avoid dmake all together for the moment...assuming I can get a successful build. ooo-build is currently looking at src680 so not a lot of help there for OOo-1.1.4. > I believe DJ is miles ahead of me on the JDK stuff, but I have been > using the JDK-1.5 for some time now and haven't encountered any > issues. > Definately not miles ahead, especially now, but actually I think the majority of projects (baring OOo for now) should be able to be built with the option '-source 1.4' (or 1.3) passed to javac (source=1.4 in javac block of build.xml for projects that take advantage of ant). This was not the case with fop as I got it to build IIRC, but had test failures... OOo's big problem lies in my previous mis-understanding of dmake. Most others are 1.5 happy now anyway. Also, I apear to have an ant problem with src680 builds (OOo-1.9.x builds) claiming that it can't find the ant libs, while many other packages that use ant have no problem. Something is amiss there leaving me unable to test jdk-1.5.0 with OOo cvs. I'm quietly working on it in the background, though I must say that I do like the gtk only builds of OOo (which ofcourse don't need ant). Unfortunately, m88 was my last build. I'll grab a snap tonight and see if I can get passed the ant failures tomorrow, I'll also take a quick peek at fop now that I have a fresh and clean java environment to work with. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/14/05 23:52 CST: > Randy McMurchy wrote: > >>So, we could update BLFS to the new JDK and just put notes in >>the FOP and OpenOffice instructions that the 1.4.2 version of >>the JDK is required. > > Yes this should be fine for now...but why upgrade if it'll cause > problems? AFAIK, the 1.4.2 is fine for everything right now. Only > people that need 1.5.0 will be devs, and they can figure it out from the > previous patches or just use the binary. I'm going to work on the issues with FOP this weekend. To answer your question of "why upgrade" the JDK - If we can resolve the issues with FOP and OpenOffice, then using the JDK-1.5 (5.0) means that one doesn't have to install a different compiler (GCC-3.3.x) to build the JDK. To me, this is a compelling reason to try to move along with the JDK-1.5. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 09:54:00 up 13 days, 9:27, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.06 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
Randy McMurchy wrote: > I'm going to work on the issues with FOP this weekend. To answer > your question of "why upgrade" the JDK - If we can resolve the > issues with FOP and OpenOffice, then using the JDK-1.5 (5.0) means > that one doesn't have to install a different compiler (GCC-3.3.x) > to build the JDK. > > To me, this is a compelling reason to try to move along with the > JDK-1.5. > Yes, I believe I should have rephased that question a bit to say 'why the rush?' The above answer should stand to answer either, however, gcc-3.3 is not required as long as gcc is not 3.4.0 or 3.4.1, though I'd like to get 1.5 done when possilbe as well. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/15/05 17:02 CST: > Yes, I believe I should have rephased that question a bit to say 'why > the rush?' The above answer should stand to answer either, however, > gcc-3.3 is not required as long as gcc is not 3.4.0 or 3.4.1, though I'd > like to get 1.5 done when possilbe as well. Because I cannot determine exactly what you mean, are you saying that the 1.4.2 version of the JDK will compile okay with GCC-3.4.3 (LFS-6.1 version)? I never even thought to try it. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 18:12:00 up 13 days, 17:45, 3 users, load average: 0.23, 0.18, 0.08 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
Randy McMurchy wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/15/05 17:02 CST: > > >>Yes, I believe I should have rephased that question a bit to say 'why >>the rush?' The above answer should stand to answer either, however, >>gcc-3.3 is not required as long as gcc is not 3.4.0 or 3.4.1, though I'd >>like to get 1.5 done when possilbe as well. > > > Because I cannot determine exactly what you mean, are you saying that > the 1.4.2 version of the JDK will compile okay with GCC-3.4.3 (LFS-6.1 > version)? I never even thought to try it. > Yes, the patch name is another from the old sytle names. j2sdk-1.4.2 suffers from the gcc reinterpret_cast problem introduced in 3.4.0...fixed in gcc-3.4.2. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/j2sdk/j2sdk-1.4.2-gcc342-1.patch It should be renamed as the jdk-1.5.0-gcc-3.4.2+-2.patch was. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
DJ Lucas wrote: > > actually I think the > majority of projects (baring OOo for now) should be able to be built > with the option '-source 1.4' passed to javac... looks like a sed to solenv/inc/settings.mk should be able to solve this. sed -i [EMAIL PROTECTED]@JAVAC=javac -source 1.3@ solenv/inc/settings.mk I think. Testing now. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
DJ Lucas wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: > > >>actually I think the >>majority of projects (baring OOo for now) should be able to be built >>with the option '-source 1.4' passed to javac... > > > looks like a sed to solenv/inc/settings.mk should be able to solve this. > > sed -i [EMAIL PROTECTED]@JAVAC=javac -source 1.3@ solenv/inc/settings.mk > Not that it actually matters, but newline doesn't replace the commented one and I didn't quote the above. sed -i '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@JAVAC=javac -source 1.3@' solenv/inc/settings.mk -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
DJ Lucas wrote: > javac -source 1.3 FYI, if the problem is still present with current BDB, the source switch will work, as it did in the OOo build of BDB. I havent' checked current BDB. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice fun
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I'm going to work on the issues with FOP this weekend.
Well I took a quick blind shot at it. source="1.4" in build.xml got
through all the depreciated enum errors for warnings, but left me
stumped with this error:
[javac]
/usr/src/fop-0.20.5/build/src/org/apache/fop/svg/PDFGraphics2D.java:1242:
org.apache.fop.svg.PDFGraphics2D.PDFGraphicsConfiguration is not
abstract and does not override abstract method
createCompatibleVolatileImage(int,int,int) in java.awt.GraphicsConfiguration
[javac] static class PDFGraphicsConfiguration extends
GraphicsConfiguration {
[javac]^
[javac] Note: * uses or overrides a deprecated API.
[javac] Note: Recompile with -Xlint:deprecation for details.
[javac] 1 error
[javac] 20 warnings
This one is way outa my league. Any furthur comments that I will _not_
make on this error should be immediately prefixed with "Well it says in
my Java For Dummies book..." ;-)
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
