Re: Call for tests: Making OpenJDK 7 the default in Wheezy LTS
Hi, On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:34:53PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 25.04.2016 um 12:23 schrieb Rene Engelhard: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:17:52PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > >> we are mainly concerned about runtime issues with OpenJDK 7. Libreoffice > >> declares dependencies on default-jre | openjdk-7-jre, so I believe it > >> should be fine. I am aware of build failures with OpenJDK 7 and I think > >> that can't be avoided unless we want to redo the whole OpenJDK 7 > >> transition. [1] > >> > >> I think in those cases it is reasonable to recommend to manually change > >> build dependencies back to OpenJDK 6 because rebuilding a package does > > > > Only if it stays (unsupported) and it's not actually removed from the > > archive.. > > We don't intend to remove OpenJDK 6 but it will receive no further > security updates. OK, then nevermind. Regards, Rene
Re: Call for tests: Making OpenJDK 7 the default in Wheezy LTS
Hi, On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:17:52PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > we are mainly concerned about runtime issues with OpenJDK 7. Libreoffice > declares dependencies on default-jre | openjdk-7-jre, so I believe it > should be fine. I am aware of build failures with OpenJDK 7 and I think > that can't be avoided unless we want to redo the whole OpenJDK 7 > transition. [1] > > I think in those cases it is reasonable to recommend to manually change > build dependencies back to OpenJDK 6 because rebuilding a package does Only if it stays (unsupported) and it's not actually removed from the archive.. > not pose a security risk and should never happen on production systems > anyway. I will update https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Wheezy and add an > example today. You miss the case where you want (as it's LTS) provide security updates. So it needs to be buildable. Or you declare all Java-using things unsupported in wheezy-LTS. Regards, Rene
Re: Call for tests: Making OpenJDK 7 the default in Wheezy LTS
Hi, On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:22:51PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > I would like to ask everyone who uses Java in server or desktop > environments to test their applications with OpenJDK 7 and to prepare > for the switch. This can be achieved by installing either openjdk-7-jre > or openjdk-7-jre-headless. In case OpenJDK 6 is already installed on Not everywhere. If your package expects a JDK path set and that is set to 6 in debian/rules (if you're not using the default) you need source changes. As for - you guess it - LO in the old times back then. 6 is hardcoded in rules (and for the build-dep in control). Running a testbuild with 7 now, but LO would need a full upload :/ Regards, Rene
Re: Bug#786895: lintian: incompatible-java-bytecode-format warning needs update for Java 1.7
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:45:46PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 26/05/2015 16:52, Rene Engelhard a écrit : > > > I think we should decide what our Java baseline is and how it affects > > release archs_before_ changing this. > > The best we can do I think is to identify the applications that should > work with GCJ (Ant and LibreOffice for example) and ensure their > dependencies are still compatible with the Java 5 API. But as Niels Well, for some LO subpackages it's already too late (*commons* used b -report-builder apparently does use 1.6+-only now), but yeah. > stated it's impossible to keep the Java 5 compatibility everywhere (Java > 9 will even be unable to generate Java 5 bytecode [1]). I know, there at least we need to kill gcj support. But until then. Or we decide we don't care ab out 1.5/gcj now. Explicitely. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150527094158.gd31...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: Bug#786895: lintian: incompatible-java-bytecode-format warning needs update for Java 1.7
Hi, On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:58:49PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about > "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian > still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default > in Jessie and it is reasonable to update the check now. Right. And with that you make stuff use 1.7 bytecode which will break gcj-using archs. kfreebsd-* (which is not in jessie, admittedly) and maybe ips* in the future (openjdk-8 disabled mips* building, so if one transitions to that and removes 7...) I think we should decide what our Java baseline is and how it affects release archs_before_ changing this. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150526145204.gc31...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: JRE version for jessie: 1.5 ?
Hi, On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:40:43AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > enough to run Ant and LibreOffice (It would be interesting the run a but only because I disable some parts on gcj-using archs (like the report builder which depends on libraries already using 1.6+ APIs afaicr or javadoc.) Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140905012830.gf22...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: Java 9 dropping support for source/target level 1.5
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:24:52AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 16/07/2014 00:07, Rene Engelhard a écrit : > > > This is nonsense. Not yet - not as long we want/need gcj (on some archs). > > Fair enough. But we already have a lot of packages incompatible with gcj > in Jessie. Bad, but other packages broken is not a reason to break more. > What are the Java applications we want/need on these archs? We should *any* Java application which is built on/for kfreebsd-* (which has native stuff) or _all (where it's available on kfreebsd-*, too) > probably document them and ensure their dependencies are not updated in > a way that renders them incompatible with gcj. And when the transition You man Conflicts: gcj, gcj-jdk? :) > to Java 9 starts these packages could be compiled with the Eclipse > compiler instead of javac. The problem is not (only) compilation, but also runtime. Lo for example has stuff disabled on gcj-builds because it does not work and some Java commons libs now need 1.6 to build and run etc... Anyway, I *do* see your point but not *now*, so short before the freeze. A loads of packages probably need changes to disable Java, get binary packages removed, etc. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140716092424.gq23...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: Java 9 dropping support for source/target level 1.5
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:08:13PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > So if you update a package and see these settings please bump them to 1.6. This is nonsense. Not yet - not as long we want/need gcj (on some archs). And changing that now for jessie is not feasible. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715220713.gp23...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: fw: Re: libreoffice-java-common: POM meta data for maven builds
Hi, On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 08:41:20AM +0200, Sebastian Humenda wrote: > As far as I have understood it, I can auto-generate / take a POM from the web, > run mh_lspoms and after I have answered the questions of the script, > everything > which can be configured is configured. On the other hand the POM's must be > assigned with the correct packages and there is more than one jar; what would > be > the right way to assign a POM file with a jar? Yeah, that's the main point of mine :) It's 4 jars over two packages. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130811091937.ge15...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: Java defaults for kfreebsd-amd64
Hi, On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:20:21PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > FYI I've had slightly more luck building this locally on kfreebsd-amd64 > with openjdk-7. I built with -j1 (to keep memory requirements low) in a debian/rules already sets -j1 for the tests explicitely, just the build is parallel. > sid chroot with newer bits from experimental only where necessary > (libclucene-dev, libmdds-dev, liborcus-dev). Only neeeded in 4.1, 4.0.4 can be built wihout those > > with:" && echo && echo "make debugrun" && echo "make > > gb_JunitTest_DEBUGRUN=T JunitTest_chart2_unoapi" && echo && false)) > > JUnit version 4.11 > > .OOoRunner Main() version from 20101118 (mmdd) > > ERROR: not supported platform: gnu/kfreebsd yay, wtf. Will have a look.. (and retry with 4.1.0 rc1) Regards. Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130624081745.gd16...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: Java defaults for kfreebsd-amd64
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:41:18AM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > There are some curious mentions of gcj also in the failed build log. Which are totally irrelevant for the thing here. You should trust the person who fought with this crap since 11 years. > > basename: missing operand > > Try `basename --help' for more information. > > dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern > > /usr/lib/x86_64-kfreebsd-gnu/gcj--*/libgcj_bc.so.1 > > dpkg-query: error: --listfiles needs at least one package name argument Needed (only and thus failing on non-gcj builds because that package is not installed) to get the path. Nothing to worry here. > > export > > PATH=/«PKGBUILDDIR»/debian/usr/bin:/usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin:$PATH; \ This might be fishy but it's there for a reason in gcj builds afair (actually don't remember why, maybe it even can be removed), BUT the build DOES NOT call "java" but $with_jdk_home/bin/java so this PATH setting is not relevant for this failure either. I'd actually bet that if I removed the PATH setting it would still fail on the kfreebsd-amd64 porterbox as it did on the buildd (yes, I tried actually I saw that failure mode *before* I uploaded and hoped it would be just a local problem - as it was with mips(el) and openjdk-6 ) Can we get on-topic again, please? Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130619095728.gb16...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: Java defaults for kfreebsd-amd64
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:58:30PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > 2013/6/18 Rene Engelhard : > > I am not sure. It built, yes, but running has some problems apparently: > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=kfreebsd-amd64&ver=1%3A4.1.0~beta2-1&stamp=1370824274 > > Are you sure those problems are not caused precisely because of gcj? Yes, definitely. (See below) nd given the kbsd-i386 build of OpenJDK fail with the same symtoms.. > In the build log, I see that default-jre-headless is being installed, > which drags in the GCJ runtime (gcj-jre-headless) rather than openjdk. In the buildlog you also see --with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-kfreebsd-amd6 and checking the installed JDK... checked (JDK 1.7.0_21) and -I/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-kfreebsd-amd64 (yes, I know, non-verbose buildlogs suck, will be fixed in next upload.) And the tests run exactly $with_jdk_home/bin/java. -2 (reverted back to gcj) works: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=kfreebsd-amd64&ver=1%3A4.1.0~beta2-2&stamp=1370930668 Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130619064826.ga16...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: Java defaults for kfreebsd-amd64
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:02:00PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > The problem seen during libreoffice build might even be related to the > openjdk-7 build issue on kfreebsd-i386. Yeah, probably. (Seen that too) Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130618114235.ge26...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: Java defaults for kfreebsd-amd64
Hi, On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:19:13AM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Please could kfreebsd-amd64 be added to the list of openjdk-7 arches on > the next upload of java-common? (patch attached) I am not sure. It built, yes, but running has some problems apparently: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=kfreebsd-amd64&ver=1%3A4.1.0~beta2-1&stamp=1370824274 hangs. So that I reverted back to gcj. > kfreebsd-i386 may follow in the future but it is not ready yet. And I *do* think that kfreebsd-* should be consistent in itself. Either both switched or none of both.. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130618104724.gd26...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: resolving maven dependencies
Hi, On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:41:05PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > That's the whole point. Maven is not part of the requirements from > Debian Java policy. > > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/ > > There is absolutely no requirement for a packager to include the maven > stuff within a java package AFAIK. And that's a good thing, imho. Stuff also works without maven and people who want it should send patches/maintain it. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130313151757.gj31...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: -gcj packages and openjdk-built jars
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 07/18/2012 02:02 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > - compile the jar.sos against -java-commons jars (b-d on itself on kbsd-*) > > The .jar.so files have no compile-time dependencies on anything. > All dependencies are resolved at runtime. Well, they obviously have the .jars as a compile-time dependency :) And that is the point of the question: What happens if the jar.so was built from a gcj-built jar but then the jar installedis built with OpenJDK? Noop? Regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120718134857.ga14...@rene-engelhard.de
-gcj packages and openjdk-built jars (was: Re: Bug#678793: task-desktop: libreoffice-gcj no longer exists)
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:53:27PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Partly. It's temporary for kfreebsd-* (see below) , the rest will stay gone > (everything except kfreebsd-* has OpenJDK available.) [...} > So it is, and yes, I plan to reenable it when gcc-defaults migrated (-gcj gets > a dependency on a newer libgcj-bc than in testing due to .shlibs) This happened some while ago - but I am actually not sure whether libreoffice-gcj actually worked in the last months. The .jar.sos get built from .jars which get build wit gcj *but not shipped*. They would be in -common but that contains the jars built by openjdk from the upload. When I read http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcj/Invoking-gcj_002ddbtool.html I read ^ibgcj can use these databases to find a shared library corresponding to the bytecode representation of a class.". That "corresponding to the bytecode representation" worries me. Does that mean that the .jar.sos as been there didn't work as gcj/openjdk probably have fine differences? And so Either we need to - compile the jar.sos against -java-commons jars (b-d on itself on kbsd-*) - move the jars somewhere which can differ between openjdk and gcj archs - forget libreoffice-gcj doko, debian-java? Any hints? Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120718130216.ga11...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: unsupporting Architecture: mips
Hi, On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 02:58:38PM +0200, Torsten Werner wrote: > - Get icedtea-7-jre-jamvm built on kfreebsd-*. > - Remove *-gcj packages on all architectures except for a minimal set of > *-gcj packages that are needed to bootstrap openjdk. if openjdk then works (for LibreOffice) on ia64, yes, I could live with that. Currently the gcj-using archs for LibreOffice are ia64, kfreebsd-%. mips switched to OpenJDK, mipsel is in limbo... But, umm, shouldn't you have sent this mail to -mips, too? :-) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110728135845.gh11...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: ant and environment variables apparently broken with gcj
Hi, On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:14:08PM +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote: > On 16/06/11 21:36, Rene Engelhard wrote: > >[ -bsd can be dropped I guess, but CC'ing now again to clean > >thi sup, ad it's not BSD-specific ] > > This is a known side effect of the multiarch transition, see > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2011/06/msg00077.html Saw that mail, but didn't match multiarch (and gcj not working at all) (and gcj being broken) to ant being half-broken (works but doesn't do stuff with envvars) But *shrugs*, OK... Grüße/Regards, René -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110616201516.ge11...@rene-engelhard.de
ant and environment variables apparently broken with gcj (was: ant and environment variables broken on kFreeBSD?)
[ -bsd can be dropped I guess, but CC'ing now again to clean
thi sup, ad it's not BSD-specific ]
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:15:19PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> libreoffice 3.3.3-1 fails to build on kfreebsd-* with the following
> (see
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=kfreebsd-amd64&ver=1%3A3.3.3-1&stamp=1308240320
> and
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=kfreebsd-i386&ver=1%3A3.3.3-1&stamp=1308246204,
> searc
> for swing-ex:
>
> --- snip ---
> get-swing-ex:
>
> BUILD FAILED
> /build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-kfreebsd-amd64-091elA/libreoffice-3.3.3/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.3.3.1/rhino/unxkfgx6.pro/misc/build/rhino1_5R5/build.xml:51:
> The following error occurred while executing this line:
> /build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-kfreebsd-amd64-091elA/libreoffice-3.3.3/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.3.3.1/rhino/unxkfgx6.pro/misc/build/rhino1_5R5/toolsrc/build.xml:43:
> src
> '/build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-kfreebsd-amd64-091elA/libreoffice-3.3.3/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.3.3.1/rhino/unxkfgx6.pro/misc/build/rhino1_5R5/toolsrc/${solenv.TARFILE_LOCATION}/35c94d2df8893241173de1d16b6034c0-swingExSrc.zip'
> doesn't exist.
>
> Total time: 5 seconds
> dmake: Error code 1, while making
> './unxkfgx6.pro/misc/build/so_built_ooo_rhino'
> --- snip ---
Which now happened also on ia64.
> somehow it looks for /35c94d2df8893241173de1d16b6034c0-swingExSrc.zip in a
> weird location. Compare this with Linux:
>
> --- snip ---
> get-swing-ex:
> [unzip] Expanding:
> /build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-i386-DUALGN/libreoffice-3.3.3/ext-sources/35c94d2df8893241173de1d16b6034c0-swingExSrc.zip
> into
> /build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-i386-DUALGN/libreoffice-3.3.3/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.3.3.1/rhino/unxlngi6.pro/misc/build/rhino1_5R5/toolsrc/org/mozilla/javascript/tools/debugger
> --- snip ---
>
> which is expected. $TARFILE_LOCATION is exported to " dir>/ext-sources/"
> in debian/rules, and the build.xml is supposed to pick it up - which it
> doesn't
> on kFreeBSD. Other (non-Java, non-inside ant) stuff fetch stuff from
s/on kfreeBSD/with gcj/
> $TARFILE_LOCATION just fine, so it seems to me that ant 1.8.2-2 doesn't
> pass the envvar properly.
>
> The last build before this uploaded worked fine:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=kfreebsd-i386&ver=1%3A3.3.2-4&stamp=1304680853,
> with ant 1.8.1-2...
Seems it happens on all the archs where gcj is used for the build, this
should then affect those archs:
OOO_GCJ_JDK_ARCHS := hppa ia64 kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 mips mipsel
Grüße/Regards,
René
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110616193655.gd11...@rene-engelhard.de
ant and environment variables broken on kFreeBSD?
Hi,
libreoffice 3.3.3-1 fails to build on kfreebsd-* with the following
(see
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=kfreebsd-amd64&ver=1%3A3.3.3-1&stamp=1308240320
and
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=kfreebsd-i386&ver=1%3A3.3.3-1&stamp=1308246204,
searc
for swing-ex:
--- snip ---
get-swing-ex:
BUILD FAILED
/build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-kfreebsd-amd64-091elA/libreoffice-3.3.3/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.3.3.1/rhino/unxkfgx6.pro/misc/build/rhino1_5R5/build.xml:51:
The following error occurred while executing this line:
/build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-kfreebsd-amd64-091elA/libreoffice-3.3.3/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.3.3.1/rhino/unxkfgx6.pro/misc/build/rhino1_5R5/toolsrc/build.xml:43:
src
'/build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-kfreebsd-amd64-091elA/libreoffice-3.3.3/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.3.3.1/rhino/unxkfgx6.pro/misc/build/rhino1_5R5/toolsrc/${solenv.TARFILE_LOCATION}/35c94d2df8893241173de1d16b6034c0-swingExSrc.zip'
doesn't exist.
Total time: 5 seconds
dmake: Error code 1, while making
'./unxkfgx6.pro/misc/build/so_built_ooo_rhino'
--- snip ---
somehow it looks for /35c94d2df8893241173de1d16b6034c0-swingExSrc.zip in a
weird location. Compare this with Linux:
--- snip ---
get-swing-ex:
[unzip] Expanding:
/build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-i386-DUALGN/libreoffice-3.3.3/ext-sources/35c94d2df8893241173de1d16b6034c0-swingExSrc.zip
into
/build/buildd-libreoffice_3.3.3-1-i386-DUALGN/libreoffice-3.3.3/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.3.3.1/rhino/unxlngi6.pro/misc/build/rhino1_5R5/toolsrc/org/mozilla/javascript/tools/debugger
--- snip ---
which is expected. $TARFILE_LOCATION is exported to "/ext-sources/"
in debian/rules, and the build.xml is supposed to pick it up - which it doesn't
on kFreeBSD. Other (non-Java, non-inside ant) stuff fetch stuff from
$TARFILE_LOCATION just fine, so it seems to me that ant 1.8.2-2 doesn't
pass the envvar properly.
The last build before this uploaded worked fine:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=kfreebsd-i386&ver=1%3A3.3.2-4&stamp=1304680853,
with ant 1.8.1-2...
Grüße/Regards,
René
--
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70
`- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110616191519.gc11...@rene-engelhard.de
Bug#562954: java-common: All java networking ignores ipv4 interfaces
# actually I disagree with that but the handling for this should be consistent # and the netbase maintainer handled the other bugs the same way block 560238 by 562954 # merge, 560142 has important, so downgrading this, too severity 562954 important forcemerge 560142 562954 thanks Hi, On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 03:24:23PM +0100, Carlo Wood wrote: > Since my last upgrade of java, all java applications that use networking > stopped working. After some research I found that this is because of > a change that makes java start to use ipv6 instead of ipv4. java-common is a package like any else. And it's not something one should report ugs on which are not caused by it. (The change was in netbase -and see http://bugs.debian.org/netbase. I'll not judge the decision from here, you need to talk to the netbase maintainer)). > Basically, all java networking got broken by this change (unless you > have and use ipv6 interfaces). True, and what makes you think java-common changed? Grüße/Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lucene 2.9.0: please check openoffice.org, pauker, jspwiki
Hi, On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:27:34AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Yep. Searching in the Help still works. (Though not if you built OOo with lucene 2.9.0 and run it with 2.4.1. Bummer I don't really like to (build-)depend on liblucene2-java (>= 2.9)) Grüße/Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lucene 2.9.0: please check openoffice.org, pauker, jspwiki
Hi, On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:48:52AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:52:21PM +0200, Jan-Pascal van Best wrote: > > I've uploaded a liblucene2-java version 2.9.0 to my private package > > repository, debian-mentors and the pkg-java queue at alioth. Could the > > maintainers of the package that depend on liblucene2-java > > (openoffice.org, pauker, jspwiki) please check whether this update would > > cause breakage? > > At least builds, I wasn't yet able to check it but will do asap. But ^ at runtime > it's not surprising that it builds, the deprecated APIs are still in 2.9.0. Yep. Searching in the Help still works. Grüße/Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lucene 2.9.0: please check openoffice.org, pauker, jspwiki
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:52:21PM +0200, Jan-Pascal van Best wrote: > I've uploaded a liblucene2-java version 2.9.0 to my private package > repository, debian-mentors and the pkg-java queue at alioth. Could the > maintainers of the package that depend on liblucene2-java > (openoffice.org, pauker, jspwiki) please check whether this update would > cause breakage? At least builds, I wasn't yet able to check it but will do asap. But it's not surprising that it builds, the deprecated APIs are still in 2.9.0. 3.0 will get more interesting, as afaik they will remove those APIs then. (and OOo *does* use lucene-analyzers.jar) > http://www.vanbest.org/debian/unstable/liblucene2-java_2.9.0+ds1-1_all.deb > or, alternatively, add the line "deb http://www.vanbest.org/debian/ > unstable/" to your /etc/apt/sources.list The APT index seems to be broken. Grüße/Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: reverse dependencies
Hi, Matthias Klose wrote: > IMO classpath-tools and free-java-sdk should be removed as well. ^^^ Shouldn't we provide a upgrade path for those who for whatever reason installed free-java-sdk and make it depend on java-gcj-compat (or openjdk6 when it's in main)? [ Either by making free-java-sdk a dummy package out of the current free-java-sdk sourcepkg or adding some new one to (maybe) java-gcj-compat ] Just my 2¢... Regards, Rene
javacc help needed
Hi, the recently accepted flutejava and flute-1.3-jfree packages use a javacc generated parser - but they currently ship one pre-generated which is not really the ideal way. I don't feel comfortable uploading those to unstable with a parser not being able to rebuilt/fixed if needed; this in turn holds some packages up from being uploaded to unstable which in turn hold up OpenOffice.org 2.3.x being uploaded to unstable.. :/ When removing the generated files, re-building the parser and trying the build it fails, though (not at the &6 ;) ) when trying to build the stuff: http://zyklop.dyndns.org/~rene/flute-1.3-jfree_20061107-2_amd64.build http://zyklop.dyndns.org/~rene/flutejava_1.3-3_amd64.build which both boil to "Unhandled exception type ParseException". Is there anyone javacc-knowledgeable who wants to look and tell me what I am/upstream is doing wrong and how to regenerate the parser? (apt-get source flutejava/flute-1.3-jfree; look for FIXME ;) ) Regards, Rene signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#426546: RFP: Pentaho reporiting engine
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Hi, According to Ocke Janssens blog [1] OOo 2.3 will use the Pentaho Reporting Engine[2] (formerly known as JFreeReport) for its new "Report Generator". Please package it. [1] http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/report_designer_will_extend_the [2] http://www.pentaho.com/products/reporting/ -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-powerpc Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The most popular java packages in contrib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: >bsh 224 Can we get bsh 2.0bX into unstable (or at least experimental)?. At least b1 seems to build fine with gcj4 (as OOo2 includes it in their source tree and building it works..) so it can be moved to main (and OOo2 recommend/suggest it instead of shipping an own bsh.jar). Regards, Rene -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC+P0G+FmQsCSK63MRAmwgAJ9jvF9hnP+Ry92RthfuuBDJqabJeACdFjTr P+vYSeBGhJIYvulw9l7R/RE= =Yekj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Status of hsqldb package
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 30. März 2005 14:18 schrieb Michael Koch: > Looks like a problem with the incomplete implementation of NIO File > locking in kaffe. > [...] > Most probably same here. > > I dont looked into hsqldb source code to check but can ypu extract a > testcase from it that reproduces the same exception with kaffe ? I guess > its some bug/missing feature with NIO file locking. hsqldb 1.8.0RC3 should fix it and work fine (with gcj-4.0/gij-4.0, though, no nothing for sid now...). Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: OpenOffice?
Hi Jim, Jim Pick wrote: > Here's a little project for somebody. > > The Debian people want to put OpenOffice in their distribution, but in > order to build it, they need to use Java. But their free software > guidelines prevent them from using Sun's version in the building of the > software because it's non-free (so OpenOffice can't be build with the > core set of Debian packages). > > I don't have time to look at it, but it would be nice to know if Kaffe > could be used instead... > you probably had put into this mail the contact address to the Debian Openoffice-Team. This is debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org I do a Cc: in this reply, Regards, Rene pgpzzwy8sISX0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenOffice?
Hi Jim, Jim Pick wrote: > Here's a little project for somebody. > > The Debian people want to put OpenOffice in their distribution, but in > order to build it, they need to use Java. But their free software > guidelines prevent them from using Sun's version in the building of the > software because it's non-free (so OpenOffice can't be build with the > core set of Debian packages). > > I don't have time to look at it, but it would be nice to know if Kaffe > could be used instead... > you probably had put into this mail the contact address to the Debian Openoffice-Team. This is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do a Cc: in this reply, Regards, Rene msg01695/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
