Eclipse still broken (in dependency hell)
Hi all, Given that the forums are not usually read by devs thought I'd pop a post here so it doesn't get forgotten between now and release (especially with feature freeze now in effect). http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=9726589 The post reads (for those who avoid the forums): Bug 600626[1] is for testng missing in release (main). There was allegedly a fix committed on 15th July but testng still resides in Universe rather than Main. This unfortunately breaks the build process for libhamcrest-java as can be seen in the build logs here[2]. Eclipse depends on libhamcrest-java and has a bug 603656[3] that this refers to. This is also listed as 'fix comitted' and yet no fix is yet forthcoming. As things stand eclipse will not be possible to install on Maverick and there has been no change for a month in this situation Any ideas how to progress this from here? James [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/testng/+bug/600626 [2] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libhamcrest-java/1.1-8/+build/1814732 [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/eclipse/+bug/603656 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Emergent: Oracle's behavior re Java
On 14 August 2010 00:02, Bruno Girin brunogi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 03:12 +0530, Manish Sinha wrote: snip They are going after Google as they think they can make a huge amount of money since Google has deep pockets. If Google bends, then the patent deals would be a huge monetization for Oracle. As I said, DVM is not JVM and has different instruction set. Oracle needs to prove that their patents are being infringed in DVM. I don't get about fragmentation. The dev end code is same, the VM is different. The dev cares more about the code *if* he knows that it's write-once-run-anywhere. Well no, the code is not the same: DVM doesn't ship the whole of the standard API and adds bits of its own, in particular the UI packages. Also, DVM is the only JVM for which a dev has to compile specifically because the byte code is different. For any other implementation of the JRE, the byte code is the same so you can compile your app and ship a jar file rather than source code and it will run. From a development point of view, if you want to create a Java app for mobile, you do have to target two environments: JME and Android; hence the fragmentation. Anyway, I'm not saying that Oracle is right or wrong in doing this, I'm just trying to understand the motivation behind it. Bruno Okay this little 'factoid' that Google have a bastardised JVM for Android is starting to annoy me... It has become one of those things someone hears from X and tells Y so that Z says X and Y both say so and it must be true... Android does *NOT* have a Java Virtual Machine. Google have never said it has a Java Virtual Machine. Microsoft got sued by Sun Micrososystems before for breach of contract and trademark issues in that they called their virtual machine Java but did not have the same interfaces (and in fact extended as well) as Sun Java and consequently fractured what Java meant - ie you cannot call it Java unless it has all the same interfaces as Java... this is the same as the Firefox (and associated trademarks) in that Mozilla will not legally let the browser be called their Trademark 'Firefox' unless it is complilied only from their source without modification this is was let to Iceweasel etc. Nokia etc license the J2ME runtime from Sun (now oracle) and hence you see the standard coffee cup logo as a splashscreen when using applications on their systems. This logo *NEVER* appears on an Android system and no attempt is made to call it Java. The documentation is very clear that Dalvik is not Java and at the low level (where it counts) there are significant differences - a registered based VM rather than stack based, very quick initialisation of objects to seamlessly move between activities, low memory footprint etc etc. The Java syntax is used to write for Android in the SDK... but the language to write in has no bearing on the Android system itself. Android has it's own class libraries based on the work done in Apache Harmony so no conflict there. It cannot be copyright issues given that Harmony had the class libraries done as a clean room implementation and Dalvik is Google's on work and not derived from other code. Oracle have not claimed Trademark issues (and it would be silly for them to do so goven that Google say DVM is NOT JVM). Trade secrets would not come into this as Google made no agreements with Sun/Oracle. So that leaves patents... something Oracle claim affects the 'java like' language one writes in for Android but realistically cannot affect the DVM runtime or else any Virtual Machine would be in trouble... and Sun would never have let MS get away with .Net then... So it's all pretty much rubbish and given we are on an 'Ubuntu' mailing list that has the GPL'd openjdk which is a desktop implementation and thus covered by the covenant this entire discussion is pretty much moot - doubly so given Debian legal will no doubt be investigating and Ubuntu will just pretty much follow them... James -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Fwd: Re: Why do some updates skip proposed? (launchpad bug 589163)
Oops missed reply to all.. Sent from Android mobile -- Forwarded message -- From: James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com Date: Jun 4, 2010 1:36 AM Subject: Re: Why do some updates skip proposed? (launchpad bug 589163) To: Arand Nash ienor...@gmail.com Given the nature of the regression in this case even 12 to 24 hours in proposed would have shown the issue as no kvm guest could run at all given the relatively low importance of the security update according to cve such an increased timeline shouldn't cause too much in the way of increased vulnerability... as it was systems running kvm will have at least an extra 24 hours for the other cve items to be fixed now due to this. Now naturally one should test updates on non-production systems anyway before pushing out en masse and with a report to fix comitted time of just 4 1/2 hours which is damn impressive... however for such a high impact and obvious regression it does leave a bad taste in the mouth as to the testing and stability of an update pushed to security repositories and perhaps a lesson to be learned and acted upon. James Sent from Android mobile On Jun 3, 2010 10:20 PM, Arand Nash ienor...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MES... On 03/06/10 18:16, James Hogarth wrote: Hey all, Quick question for anyone that can give a q... As stated on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelUpdates: * Security updates will be u... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Why do some updates skip proposed? (launchpad bug 589163)
Err thanks... my bad with the Android client ;-) Speaking with regard to this update in particular the patch that broke kvm on certain systems was to fix a kvm security issue cve-2010-0419. The fix was to revert the patch that dealt with the error until a better patch can be developed... The consideration of the gentleman that carried out triage is that the kvm security issue described is relatively minor and thus waiting for a better fix for that cve is okay. But taking that point... if the severity is sufficiently minor to take that stance why risk rushing it through as a security update especially on an lts release in the first place? One would think for severity medium to minor following the standard update procedure of ppa to proposed to updates would suffice and provide a higher level of qa. James Sent from Android mobile On Jun 4, 2010 10:12 AM, Arand Nash ienor...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/10 02:36, James Hogarth wrote: Given the nature of the regression in this case even 12 to... Just an fyi, it seems you sent this to me personally, and not to the mailing list as well, might want to send it there just to keep the discussion going ;) - arand -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Why do some updates skip proposed? (launchpad bug 589163)
Hey all, Quick question for anyone that can give a quick answer... The kernel released for lucid last night (2.6.32-22.35) broke kvm guests - prevented them from starting. The kernel that was in proposed (2.6.32-22.33) has no problems. Looking at launchpad it looks like 2.6.32-22.35 never hit proposed and went straight to updates/security: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/2.6.32-22.35/+publishinghistory Given that this broke KVM guests on an LTS release no less (and kvm is pushed by Ubuntu as the virtualisation system to use) it presents a reasonably serious problem. How did this get straight to release with no testing in proposed? What is the point of having proposed for bug testing if a released package never goes through it - especially for something as critically important to the core system as the kernel? Hopefully the issue can be fixed soon so those of us who use KVM on Lucid are able to use the latest kernel with any bug fixes again.. As it is anyone with this issue cannot get a fix from Ubuntu as a vendor for the following CVE's as they are part of the update that broke kvm: CVE-2010-0419 CVE-2010-1162 CVE-2010-1488 CVE-2010-1148 CVE-2010-1146 CVE-2009-4537 And if they don't have the savvy (or are unwilling to run a 'proposed' kernel) to obtain the 2.6.32-22.33 kernel directly from the launchpad build page they will also be missing updates for launchpad bugs 526354 and 567016. Any thoughts on this issue? Regards, James -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: karmic trashed in Tomshardware.com
Well over here carried out 2 upgrades and 2 fresh installs so far. Couple of minor issues but nothing bug worthy. We use nVidia cards and dual monitors - had the 'cannot parse xorg.conf' documented issue when configuring twinview (simple enough to sort out). Also had an issue with filesystem performance on ext3 and ext4 with ordered journaling and grails (groovy on rails) which caused ~50% I/Owait on running tests and consequently very slow performance. Tests running took 4x as long as on jaunty Mounting with a writeback journal and noatimes brought performance back in line. Given these were desktops the possible loss in FS reliability on crash is an acceptable tradeoff for the reduced testing time or else productivity takes a big hit. 2009/12/8 Paul Smith p...@mad-scientist.us On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 11:07 +0800, Tim Hawkins wrote: I dont know if it is relevant, but looking at the specs of the two unstable machines listed in the article, both had nVidia chipsets The one machine (netbook) that they said worked perfectly had an Intel Graphics chipset. Given the amount of discussion relating to problems with the nVidia drivers in Karmic, could this be a factor in this review.? One never knows, of course, but FYI I have one system at home with an Intel graphics chipset, and two systems at work both with Nvidia cards using the proprietary drivers (both have dual monitors attached). All three work just fine in Karmic, and have from the beginning (no upgrade issues to speak of). We've upgraded probably about 15 systems at work and only two problems: one was that the screensaver enabled during the upgrade and, since that person was mounting their home directory over NFS and it tried to restart NFS, badness happened so that we couldn't get rid of the screensaver by hand, and it was putting up a dialog asking about overwriting some file. I had to C-A-F1, login there, and kill it; the upgrade finished just fine from there. The other I'm not sure what happened: they did it while I wasn't around :-) I did see a problem on my system at home (Intel graphics) when I had the screensaver set to Random: my kernel panicked twice in one day while I was away from my desk. I switched back to Blank which is what I always use anyway, and haven't seen a single glitch since. I'm assuming there're one or more bugs still in the Intel driver WRT GL graphics or similar. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
