Re: bnd update 2.1.0
On 19.05.2015 16:15, Miguel Landaeta wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:03:22PM -0300, Miguel Landaeta wrote: >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:43:31PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: >> >>> Great! Just one more thing. There is one file which contains a >>> problematic copyright statement >>> >>> aQute.libg/src/aQute/lib/filter/Filter.java >> >> However, we can't upload it as is due to this non-free source file. >> > > OTOH, 1.50.0 source package included this file but I'm pretty sure > if bnd were a NEW package it wouldn't pass through FTPmasters. > I have opened an upstream issue for this. https://github.com/bndtools/bnd/issues/944 Unfortunately just removing the file without patching other sources doesn't work. Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: bnd update 2.1.0
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:03:22PM -0300, Miguel Landaeta wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:43:31PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > > > Great! Just one more thing. There is one file which contains a > > problematic copyright statement > > > > aQute.libg/src/aQute/lib/filter/Filter.java > > However, we can't upload it as is due to this non-free source file. > OTOH, 1.50.0 source package included this file but I'm pretty sure if bnd were a NEW package it wouldn't pass through FTPmasters. -- Miguel Landaeta, nomadium at debian.org secure email with PGP 0x6E608B637D8967E9 available at http://miguel.cc/key. "Faith means not wanting to know what is true." -- Nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: bnd update 2.1.0
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:43:31PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > Hi again Markus, Excellent work updating this package. I consider it ready to be uploaded to experimental. I'd like to check the compability of this release in experimental although I understand there are several packages broken in sid right now. > Great! Just one more thing. There is one file which contains a > problematic copyright statement > > aQute.libg/src/aQute/lib/filter/Filter.java However, we can't upload it as is due to this non-free source file. > > Gatespace grants those rights only to OSGi if I'm not mistaken and I saw > in bnd's changelog that this file has been already removed in one of the > earlier packages, but somehow it came back in newer versions. What do > you think? Do you think we can exclude this file from the source code? Or maybe we can find a free reimplementation of it? Can you take it to upstream? Thanks for taking the time to update it. Cheers, -- Miguel Landaeta, nomadium at debian.org secure email with PGP 0x6E608B637D8967E9 available at http://miguel.cc/key. "Faith means not wanting to know what is true." -- Nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: bnd update 2.1.0
On 18.05.2015 22:35, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 18/05/2015 22:17, Markus Koschany a écrit : > >> I think I have finally fixed all issues with bnd 2.1.0, so that I'm >> confident the package can be uploaded to experimental at least. >> >> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/bnd.git >> >> I had to write a couple of patches to ensure the package can be built >> from source (even twice in a row now). > > Well done Markus! This is an important update. Thanks! > >> I removed biz.aQute.repository and biz.aQute.resolve in our clean target >> because I think we don't need this feature (OSGi Bundle Repository) for >> Debian. Dependencies are usually installed via package managers and I >> doubt that it is very useful to install all the required >> build-dependencies like jetty for example. > > These are new features of bnd 2.x or things already packaged in Debian? These are two new modules in bnd 2.x. We already ship the Apache implementation of OSGi Bundle Repository, felix-osgi-obr, for example but this is unrelated to bnd 2.1.0. https://packages.qa.debian.org/f/felix-osgi-obr.html Of course these modules might be useful for someone who wants to set up a bundle repository. However these bnd modules are currently not required by other packages AFAIK. Both modules require additional dependencies, jetty, mockito and javax.xml.stream and more patches because they FTBFS currently. >> I haven't tested all r-deps yet. The fix is easy but there might be >> other undetected issues, so I think an upload to experimental is preferable. > > What about patching bnd to also support the old '-foo' syntax in > addition to the new '--foo' form? That should be easy if the semantic > hasn't changed. Interesting idea but in my opinion we would only shift the issue to another package. Admittedly it could be theoretically fixed in one package but users might assume the old syntax is still valid and supported by upstream and this might create problems across different distributions when your Debian script suddenly doesn't work anymore on Arch Linux, Fedora or FreeBSD. It is also not just a problem with the new --foo form but also with the path to input and output directory. > There are 29 direct dependencies on bnd, plus 57 indirect ones through > libmaven-bundle-plugin-java, we'll have to test them all. If the > compatibility is good I think upgrading the existing bnd package is a > good idea, but if we get many issues we should probably create a new > package. I agree we need to be careful here and I assume there will be other build failures because bnd is frequently called in debian/rules. I don't see an ideal way yet to solve the problem because bnd 1.50.0 already FTBFS in sid and we have to patch this version to make it work with the latest osgi packages. The current version works with OSGi R4 bundles but my main intention was to support R5/R6 bundles. The update to osgi-core 6.0.0 was probably too early because bnd hasn't even implemented all new interfaces. But we are very early in the Stretch release cycle, so I presume they will catch up and release an updated version in the near future. We should also try to update bnd to version 2.4.0+ as soon as we have an up-to-date Gradle package in Debian. I'm not sure if we can support both, bnd 1.50.0 and bnd 2.1.0+, especially because they were intended for different OSGi specifications but I might be wrong. Regards, Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: bnd update 2.1.0
Le 18/05/2015 22:43, Markus Koschany a écrit : > Gatespace grants those rights only to OSGi if I'm not mistaken and I saw > in bnd's changelog that this file has been already removed in one of the > earlier packages, but somehow it came back in newer versions. What do > you think? The copyright notices reads: "Copyright (c) 2000 Gatespace AB. All Rights Reserved. Gatespace grants Open Services Gateway Initiative (OSGi) an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, paid-up right and license to reproduce, display, perform, prepare and have prepared derivative works based upon and distribute and sublicense this material and derivative works thereof as set out in the OSGi MEMBER AGREEMENT as of January 24 2000, for use in accordance with Section 2.2 of the BY-LAWS of the OSGi MEMBER AGREEMENT." It states that OSGi was allowed to sublicense this file as they like, so the question is, under what license did they distribute this file? Emmanuel Bourg -- 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/555a52c2.3050...@apache.org
Re: bnd update 2.1.0
On 18.05.2015 22:32, Miguel Landaeta wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:17:04PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I think I have finally fixed all issues with bnd 2.1.0, so that I'm >> confident the package can be uploaded to experimental at least. >> >> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/bnd.git >> > > Hi Markus, > > This is a great news. I'll take a look at this package tonight. Great! Just one more thing. There is one file which contains a problematic copyright statement aQute.libg/src/aQute/lib/filter/Filter.java Gatespace grants those rights only to OSGi if I'm not mistaken and I saw in bnd's changelog that this file has been already removed in one of the earlier packages, but somehow it came back in newer versions. What do you think? Cheers Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: bnd update 2.1.0
Le 18/05/2015 22:17, Markus Koschany a écrit : > I think I have finally fixed all issues with bnd 2.1.0, so that I'm > confident the package can be uploaded to experimental at least. > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/bnd.git > > I had to write a couple of patches to ensure the package can be built > from source (even twice in a row now). Well done Markus! This is an important update. > I removed biz.aQute.repository and biz.aQute.resolve in our clean target > because I think we don't need this feature (OSGi Bundle Repository) for > Debian. Dependencies are usually installed via package managers and I > doubt that it is very useful to install all the required > build-dependencies like jetty for example. These are new features of bnd 2.x or things already packaged in Debian? > I haven't tested all r-deps yet. The fix is easy but there might be > other undetected issues, so I think an upload to experimental is preferable. What about patching bnd to also support the old '-foo' syntax in addition to the new '--foo' form? That should be easy if the semantic hasn't changed. There are 29 direct dependencies on bnd, plus 57 indirect ones through libmaven-bundle-plugin-java, we'll have to test them all. If the compatibility is good I think upgrading the existing bnd package is a good idea, but if we get many issues we should probably create a new package. Emmanuel Bourg -- 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/555a4cf6.8070...@apache.org
Re: bnd update 2.1.0
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:17:04PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > Hello, > > I think I have finally fixed all issues with bnd 2.1.0, so that I'm > confident the package can be uploaded to experimental at least. > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/bnd.git > Hi Markus, This is a great news. I'll take a look at this package tonight. Cheers, -- Miguel Landaeta, nomadium at debian.org secure email with PGP 0x6E608B637D8967E9 available at http://miguel.cc/key. "Faith means not wanting to know what is true." -- Nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature
bnd update 2.1.0
Hello, I think I have finally fixed all issues with bnd 2.1.0, so that I'm confident the package can be uploaded to experimental at least. https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/bnd.git I had to write a couple of patches to ensure the package can be built from source (even twice in a row now). I removed biz.aQute.repository and biz.aQute.resolve in our clean target because I think we don't need this feature (OSGi Bundle Repository) for Debian. Dependencies are usually installed via package managers and I doubt that it is very useful to install all the required build-dependencies like jetty for example. The core functionality like the bnd command-line tool, bndlib and the launcher appears to work. However there are notable differences between the old version of bnd and version 2.1.0. The command-line syntax is different now which is also the cause for new build failures (yeah). I discovered this change when I tried to rebuild axis. debian/rules snippet of axis: for BNDFILE in debian/*.bnd; do \ JARPATH=build/lib/`basename $$BNDFILE .bnd`.jar; \ bnd wrap -properties $$BNDFILE -output $$JARPATH $$JARPATH; \ done Now options require two hyphens and output directory and input directory must be different. A fix could look like this one: for BNDFILE in debian/*.bnd; do \ JARPATH=build/lib/`basename $$BNDFILE .bnd`.jar; \ bnd wrap --properties $$BNDFILE --output debian/tmp/`basename $$BNDFILE .bnd`.jar $$JARPATH; \ done I haven't tested all r-deps yet. The fix is easy but there might be other undetected issues, so I think an upload to experimental is preferable. Regards, Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
