Bug#362500: eclipse uninstallable for amd64
2006/4/13, Joel Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > eclipse version 3.1.1-8 is uninstallable on my amd64 box due to the mixed > upgrade to 3.1.2-1 in the repository. You are right. I didn't noticed it before.It affects me too, because I use a powerpc, which also not available. @Michael: Do you know what goes wrong? Stephan Michels ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#357301: eclipse randomly crashes, usually at startup
2006/3/16, César Enrique García Dabó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am trying to use eclipse in my testing/unstable system. > Each time I start eclipse with j2se it crashes randomly. Sometimes it doesn`t > go beyond the splashscreen, other times it crashes just after the framework > has been showed, and other times (not often) it crashes when trying to open > a project or a menu option. I append the error report file created by > java. Also a window is showed with the command line options, > I reproduced it below. > The java version used is: > Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (Blackdown-1.4.2-03 mixed mode) The stack trace seems to end at org.eclipse.jface.bindings.keys.formatting.AbstractKeyFormatter.format(Lorg/eclipse/jface/bindings/keys/KeyStroke;)Ljava/lang/String;+57 , which doesn't execute any native code. So I can exclude any problem which may occur with the SWT libs. I would assume that it is an error of your vm. As we do not support closed source software, you have to contact someone else. > I have tried with sable-vm, but it randomly get hang, without response. > I have also tried with kaffe, but it runs tremondously slowly and finally > it also crashes (I found no log file). I don't know much sablevm and it is known that kaffe is very slow. And a new package for kaffe 1.1.7 is not available ATM. I have good experiences with gcj and cacao, which you should try. As I don't see any bugs I can solve, I will close this report. Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#355104: Me Too!
2006/3/17, Benjamin Eastep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am also experiencing this bug (on one of my two machines), however purging > & reinstalling the eclipse packages did not solve the problem for me. > > Eclipse packages are all 3.1.2-1 Can you please open a separate report for your problem if it still exists as you seems to have a different problem. And please run eclipse with -clean -consolelog -debug to get more information. I will close this report, because the original author has resolved his problem. Thank you, Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#358594: eclipse binary, desktop/menu things should be in eclipse-platform
2006/3/23, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Package: eclipse > Version: 3.1.2 > > Forwarded from https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/eclipse/+bug/35871 > > I have just installed eclipse-platform-gcj on dapper and I have no > /usr/bin/eclipse script anywhere on my system. It appears this is > supposed to be in the eclipse-platform-common package but it's not. > > Even though it shouldn't be required, I tried installing the full > eclipse package and sure enough /usr/bin/eclipse was hiding > there. This is not a viable solution, however, as the eclipse package > additionally requires me to install: > > ant-optional, eclipse-jdt, eclipse-jdt-common, eclipse-pde, > eclipse-pde-common, eclipse-source, junit > > None of which I want to install. It seems that the core > eclipse-platform files like /usr/bin/eclipse should either be moved > back to eclipse-platform-common or the SDK files (and required > dependencies) should be moved back into the eclipse-sdk package as it > used to be. The eclipse executeable should be in the eclipse package. eclipse-platform-gcj is not a stand-alone package Through the installation of the eclipse package you ensure that you have everything installed. If you don't install all eclipse packages, then you will have missing dependencies in eclipse if you don't install for example the pde plugins. Eclipse won't work correctly without patching the features. And even if it works with patching of the features, I don't think it's a good idea, because other plugins can depend on the core plugins and then they will missing some plugins. @Michael: I really think its a better idea to a have one package, The current situation caused to much troubles. What do you think? Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#356028: eclipse-ecj is version 3.1.0, not 3.1.2
2006/3/9, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > if ecj-java works, ecj-java -help still says it's version 3.1.0, not > 3.1.2 Hmm, doesn't happen to me: $ ecj-java -help | grep 3.1 testing /usr/lib/j2sdk1.4-ibm...Eclipse Java Compiler v_585_R31x, 3.1.2 release, Copyright IBM Corp 2000, 2006. All rights reserved. $ ecj-java -v testing /usr/lib/j2sdk1.4-ibm...Eclipse Java Compiler v_585_R31x, 3.1.2 release, Copyright IBM Corp 2000, 2006. All rights reserved. $ ecj -v Eclipse Java Compiler v_585_R31x, 3.1.2 release, Copyright IBM Corp 2000, 2006. All rights reserved. Does it still occur? Thank you, Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#361696: libswt3.1-gtk-jni: Coarse dependencies
2006/4/9, Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Please put the Gnome and Mozilla shared libraries into their own > binary packages to reduce the coarseness of libswt3.1-gtk-jni's > dependencies. If I put the jni libraries into separate packages, then I have to separate the swt java lib too. This is much work and I don't see any benefit I would gain. Moreover swt wasn't design my the eclipse team to be apportionable. Do you see any reason why we should do it? Thank you, Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#352184: eclipse: cannot build from source with firefox support
2006/2/10, Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The support for firefox-dev is for Ubuntu. It doenst exist on Debian. > That is intentional. > > We removed the Dependencies on firefox becuase it just doesnt work. We > are still investigating this. The only thing that works currently is the > mozilla-browser. firefox misses some symbol in its libraries. When this > solved we will readd the other browsers. I think we should switch to xulrunner. Using firefox for the browser bindings wasn't very successful and I don't want to install the mozilla browser only because of the browser bindings. Hopefully I can try it later with xulrunner. Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#361692: libswt3.1-gtk-jni: Conflicts with libswt-gnome-gtk-3.1-jni
2006/4/9, Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Unpacking libswt3.1-gtk-jni (from .../libswt3.1-gtk-jni_3.1.2-1_i386.deb) ... > dpkg: error processing > /var/cache/apt/archives/libswt3.1-gtk-jni_3.1.2-1_i386.deb (--unpack): > trying to overwrite `/usr/lib/jni/libswt-gnome-gtk-3139.so', which > is also in package libswt-gnome-gtk-3.1-jni To have the same swt lib into two different packages was not our intention. It would be good to have one swt lib in the archive, then such things won't occur. Is it possible to merge your swt package with our swt package? Can we resolve the current situation somehow? Thank you, Stephan Michels.. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#356027: eclipse-ecj installation error
2006/3/9, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > $ ecj-java -help > cat: /etc/eclipse/java_home: No such file or directory > Could not find a suitable JVM. > > maybe missing dependencies? It's not sure, that /etc/eclipse/java_home > exists. Yes, seems so. java_home is installed by the eclipse package, but eclipse-ecj does only depend on eclipse-jdt->eclipse-platform->eclipse-rcp Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#359945: /usr/bin/eclipse: source is not a POSIX shell command
This one time, at band camp, Stephan Michels said: > 2006/3/29, Michal Politowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > /usr/bin/eclipse is a /bin/sh script but it uses the source command, which > > is not specified by POSIX, to read ~/.eclipse/eclipserc. > > Hmm, so, what sould we use instead of "source"? > > Maybe we can use ". ~/.eclipse/eclipserc" instead ... That's the correct way. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#361692: libswt3.1-gtk-jni: Conflicts with libswt-gnome-gtk-3.1-jni
On 4/14/06, Stephan Michels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To have the same swt lib into two different packages was not our intention. > It would be good to have one swt lib in the archive, then such things > won't occur. > Is it possible to merge your swt package with our swt package? > Can we resolve the current situation somehow? > > Thank you, Stephan Michels.. That's primarily the reason for my filing these bug reports. I've received a number of bug reports asking for Azureus on AMD64. Since I've heard that Eclipse's SWT builds and runs on AMD64, I thought I'd look into it again. However, Eclipse currently fails-to-build-from-source on every architecture except PowerPC [1]. When Eclipse's SWT has stabilised and migrated to testing, I'll revisit the situation. [1] http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=eclipse The reason for my previous bug report, is that I consider it a requirement that Azureus not depend on either Gnome or Mozilla. Cheers, Shaun ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#361696: libswt3.1-gtk-jni: Coarse dependencies
On 4/14/06, Stephan Michels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2006/4/9, Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Please put the Gnome and Mozilla shared libraries into their own > > binary packages to reduce the coarseness of libswt3.1-gtk-jni's > > dependencies. > > If I put the jni libraries into separate packages, then I have to > separate the swt java lib too. This is much work and I don't see any > benefit I would gain. Moreover swt wasn't design my the eclipse team > to be apportionable. > > Do you see any reason why we should do it? Yes. Making the dependencies finer-grained allows a package requiring SWT/GTK to avoid installing Gnome and Mozilla, which are both large, extraneous packages. A HelloWorld/SWT program has no reason to depend on Mozilla. I wouldn't split the jar library. Leave it up to the package depending on the -java package to also depend on the correct -jni packages. Cheers, Shaun ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#362500: marked as done (eclipse uninstallable for amd64)
Your message dated Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:34:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Done has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: eclipse Version: 3.1.1-8 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable eclipse version 3.1.1-8 is uninstallable on my amd64 box due to the mixed upgrade to 3.1.2-1 in the repository. ~# sudo apt-get install eclipse The following packages have unmet dependencies: eclipse: Depends: eclipse-jdt (= 3.1.1-8) but it is not going to be installed Depends: eclipse-pde (= 3.1.1-8) but it is not going to be installed Depends: eclipse-source (= 3.1.1-8) but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages Packages such as eclipse-rcp are still at 3.1.1-8 while its dependency, eclipse-rcp-common, has been updated to 3.1.2-1. This has been the state of the repository for a month or more, but it hasn't affected me because I've been pinning the suite of packages. I recently removed my pin, however, and cleaned my local deb cache, so I'm at a loss to find the 3.1.1-8 dependencies that are missing from the amd64 repository. ( http://amd64.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/eclipse/ ) I'm probably missing something, but any help would be appreciated. -Joel -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-jdr-20060410 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Version: 3.1.2-1 Hi, this is fixed by version 3.1.2-1 which made the eclipse binary package arch:any. I see though that you're opening this againt 3.1.1-8, quite a while after 3.1.2-1 entered sid. Of course, you can't expect eclipse to be installable on any arch on which it FTBFS (and eclipse currently FTBFS basically everywhere). --- End Message --- ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
libjgoodies-forms-java 1.0.5-5 MIGRATED to testing
FYI: The status of the libjgoodies-forms-java source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: (not in testing) Current version: 1.0.5-5 -- This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible. See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#362500: acknowledged by developer (Done)
If 3.1.2-1 cannot be built from source on the amd64 architecture, is it possible to put the 3.1.1-8 arch:any binary packages back in the amd64 repository? If 3.1.1-8 is kosher for amd64 but 3.1.2-1 isn't, why would eclipse be left in a mixed state in the repository on amd64.debian.net?This seems to be due to my unfamiliarity with package management. Is there a mailing list or individual/s I should carry on this conversation with other than in this bug? ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
