Bruce Rothermal wrote: > So before you vote this down. How long will it take to get this bug > fixed. This package (vuze) is not being ported because it is an > interesting piece of software. It is a required mandatory package > needed for a project in the HPC Deployer project.
Bruce, There's an outstanding issue with the classpath that stops Vuze from actually running. This has been seen on 3 separate installs on 3 separate systems so it's not environmental. Spoorthy needs to fix that before anyone should even consider voting on it. It's in the comments. Amanda > > Bruce > > > On May 13, 2009, at 8:41 AM, George Drapeau wrote: > >> >> >> Eric Reid - Sun ISV Engineering wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - the app's BitTorrent upload and download capabilities worked >>>>> fine; it's good enough to use as a BitTorrent client, but will be >>>>> missing some functionality (no rendering of the Vuze HD Network >>>>> page since no HTML browser support since it's not in SWT on >>>>> OpenSolaris as far as I could tell). >>>> If main functionality is there but satelite functionality isnt >>>> working, it's good enough for /contrib. But not for other repos. >>> Gosh, I have a HUGE problem with this. IPS packages enforce >>> dependencies at install time, as do all mature packaging systems >>> today. The fact that SJ has a bug, IMHO, is *not* reason enough to >>> claim these IPS packages in /contrib are "good enough". All the >>> caveats in the world will not head off potential installation >>> experience headaches, which will then turn people off from OpenSolaris. >> You've changed my mind; rather, I should have been more specific in >> my last message about my opinion on the Vuze / Azureus package. I >> would call Vuze an alpha or beta level release because it works but >> lacks known functionality; I can live with that, if the package >> submitter were to rapidly improve the package. But this whole >> lack-of-dependency-checking thing is a show-stopper for packages >> submitted via Juicer. I apologize; I completely ignored that in my >> most recent message, even though I mentioned it my early comments on >> the package. >> >> Dependencies not working: sounds like a no-go to me for any package >> submission that specifies package dependencies. Seems like that >> should get fixed, then every package submitted that specified >> dependencies can be re-checked easily, then they can all go through. >> But they shouldn't go through now. >> >> Separately, Amanda made a good point about the other Vuze package >> bug, not correctly specifying the path to swt.jar. That does need to >> be fixed before this package is ready to be released. >>> >>> I could not in good conscience give a +1 to such packages. >>> >>> I would be curious to hear the opinions of the other SW-Porters Core >>> Contributors. >>> >> Me, too. I think it's straightforward enough: why allow packages to >> be released when we know they're missing the dependency stuff? The >> bug will get fixed at some point, then we'll just have more packages >> ready to be published, but not until then. Do the other Core >> Contributors agree? >> >> G. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sw-porters-discuss mailing list >> sw-porters-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sw-porters-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > sw-porters-discuss mailing list > sw-porters-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sw-porters-discuss
