Fedora Core package list

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

The Apache group started a discussion around getting a full free j2se
implementation. It is obvious that they need input on the state of the
existing efforts. Could someone make a list of all the new packages
build with gcj 4 and gcj-java-compat for Fedora Core 4 and some simple
instructions for someone that wants to get up and running quickly to
check that out?

Their mailinglist is harmony-dev(a)incubator.apache.org

Thanks,

Mark

-- 
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/

[Gary Benson]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
>  The Apache group started a discussion around getting a full free
>  j2se implementation. It is obvious that they need input on the state
>  of the existing efforts. Could someone make a list of all the new
>  packages build with gcj 4 and gcj-java-compat for Fedora Core 4 and
>  some simple instructions for someone that wants to get up and
>  running quickly to check that out? 
Well, the main packages are Tomcat and Eclipse.  I can't speak for the
Eclipse guys, but to try out Tomcat you'd probably do something like:

 1. Install a FC4tX box.
 2. yum install tomcat5 tomcat5-webapps tomcat5-admin-webapps
 3. service tomcat5 start
 4. Look at http://localhost:8080/

Assuming they know their way around Tomcat all they need to know to
configure it is that CATALINA_HOME is /usr/share/tomcat5.

Is that the kind of thing they're after?

>  Their mailinglist is harmony-dev(a)incubator.apache.org 
I'm going to be on holiday in five hours time, and I won't be back til
May 23rd, so I don't want to start a thread there that I won't be able
to respond to properly.  Would you mind mailing them what I just
wrote (assuming it's what you were after)?

Cheers,
Gary

[Nicolas Mailhot]

On Mar 10 mai 2005 13:03, Gary Benson a écrit :
>  Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > The Apache group started a discussion around getting a full free
> > j2se implementation. It is obvious that they need input on the state
> > of the existing efforts. Could someone make a list of all the new
> > packages build with gcj 4 and gcj-java-compat for Fedora Core 4 and
> > some simple instructions for someone that wants to get up and
> > running quickly to check that out?
>
>  Well, the main packages are Tomcat and Eclipse.  I can't speak for the
>  Eclipse guys, but to try out Tomcat you'd probably do something like:
>
>   1. Install a FC4tX box.
>   2. yum install tomcat5 tomcat5-webapps tomcat5-admin-webapps
>   3. service tomcat5 start
>   4. Look at http://localhost:8080/ 
If I may chirp in you can get a pretty good idea of the gcj advancement by
comparing the java packages on jpackage.org and the ones in Fedora Devel.

Any package present in the first repo but not in the second one has
probably not been tested with gcj yet.

If a package is present in jpackage.org but is slightly different in
Fedora Extras that usualy means it had to include some gcj-specific
changes.

(or the package itself has some build problem that was workarounded with a
past vendot jvm but not any longer - this includes build dependency loops,
api breaks, etc Sadly Apache/Jakarta packages are well represented in the
semi-broken state too)

Packages on jpackage.org are supposed to be jvm-agnostic (there are bugs
like anywhere else too). Once gcj has a complete drop-in jvm personality
they are supposed to all work as-is.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Gary Benson]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  Packages on jpackage.org are supposed to be jvm-agnostic (there are
>  bugs like anywhere else too). Once gcj has a complete drop-in jvm
>  personality they are supposed to all work as-is. 
This is pretty much the case now.

Gary

[Nicolas Mailhot]

On Mar 10 mai 2005 14:11, Gary Benson a écrit :
>  Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Packages on jpackage.org are supposed to be jvm-agnostic (there are
> > bugs like anywhere else too). Once gcj has a complete drop-in jvm
> > personality they are supposed to all work as-is.
>
>  This is pretty much the case now. 
Well we're not yet at the point where you can feed all the srpms to a
build farm and everything builds with gcj.

Though I do agree most of the problems are not gcj-specific (but some are)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Gary Benson]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  On Mar 10 mai 2005 14:11, Gary Benson a écrit :
>  > Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  > > Packages on jpackage.org are supposed to be jvm-agnostic (there
>  > > are bugs like anywhere else too). Once gcj has a complete
>  > > drop-in jvm personality they are supposed to all work as-is.
>  >
>  > This is pretty much the case now.
>  
>  Well we're not yet at the point where you can feed all the srpms to
>  a build farm and everything builds with gcj. 
Sure, but the drop-in jvm personality is pretty much complete.

>  Though I do agree most of the problems are not gcj-specific (but
>  some are) 
Yeah, the majority of things I've come across are in the class
library, either because bits are missing or because I'm exercising
bits that haven't been exercised before.

Gary

[Anthony Green]

On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 14:19 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  his is pretty much the case now.
>  
>  Well we're not yet at the point where you can feed all the srpms to a
>  build farm and everything builds with gcj.
>  
>  Though I do agree most of the problems are not gcj-specific (but some are) 
Yes, I think we're in pretty decent shape.  I've tried grabbing random
SRPMS from jpackage and building/installing with java-gcj-compat.  Most
packages just work.  Of those that didn't, most were because of
dependencies on non-free packages I don't want to install.  Very few (if
any) were gcj/ecj problems.  I'm sorry I don't have real data.  This was
a couple of months ago.

AG

[Gary Benson]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  If a package is present in jpackage.org but is slightly different in
>  Fedora Extras that usualy means it had to include some gcj-specific
>  changes. 
Actually, for s/Fedora Extras/Fedora Core/ this is not strictly true.
Firstly, many of the packages have had their non-free dependencies
slashed out.  This doesn't mean they don't _work_ on gcj, it just
means we're not using them for moral reasons.  Secondly, many of the
packages now have BC-compiled solibs, for speed.  Finally, I've made a
ton of bug fixes this past few weeks, which I'll be submitting
upstream when I get back from holiday.

I can't actually think of any gcj-specifics in FC4's Tomcat stack off
the top of my head (though that doesn't mean there aren't any!)  For
most issues the natural place for the fix is in gcj (libgcj, etc) so
I've not had to modify things much.

Cheers,
Gary

[Nicolas Mailhot]

On Mar 10 mai 2005 16:33, Gary Benson a écrit :
>  Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > If a package is present in jpackage.org but is slightly different in
> > Fedora Extras that usualy means it had to include some gcj-specific
> > changes.
>
>  Actually, for s/Fedora Extras/Fedora Core/ this is not strictly true.
>  Firstly, many of the packages have had their non-free dependencies
>  slashed out.  This doesn't mean they don't _work_ on gcj, it just
>  means we're not using them for moral reasons. 
Well when I wrote gcj-specific I meant gcj+gnu classpath specific problems;)

Obviously if the harmony guys want a full j2ee replacement they'll have to
take care of all those non-free dependency holes too.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Gary Benson]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  Obviously if the harmony guys want a full j2ee replacement
> they'll
>  have to take care of all those non-free dependency holes too. 
Yeah.  I don't envy them!

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 14:07 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  If I may chirp in you can get a pretty good idea of the gcj
> advancement by
>  comparing the java packages on jpackage.org and the ones in Fedora Devel. 
I know the package list of jpackage.org. That is at http://jpackage.org/
But where is the Fedora Devel package list?
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/package-list/ only has fc2 which seems
ancient. I found http://people.redhat.com/sopwith/new-packages.txt but I
don't know how up to date it is.

>  Any package present in the first repo but not in the second one has
>  probably not been tested with gcj yet.
>  
>  If a package is present in jpackage.org but is slightly different in
>  Fedora Extras that usualy means it had to include some gcj-specific
>  changes.
>  
>  (or the package itself has some build problem that was workarounded with a
>  past vendot jvm but not any longer - this includes build dependency loops,
>  api breaks, etc Sadly Apache/Jakarta packages are well represented in the
>  semi-broken state too) 
Do you happen to have lists of these cross-sections (on both lists, on
one list, on the small changes list)?

Thanks,

Mark

[Gary Benson]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
>  On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 14:07 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  > If I may chirp in you can get a pretty good idea of the gcj
>  > advancement by comparing the java packages on jpackage.org and the
>  > ones in Fedora Devel.
>  
>  I know the package list of jpackage.org. That is at
>  http://jpackage.org/ But where is the Fedora Devel package list? 
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/3.92/SRPMS/

Cheers,
Gary

[Nicolas Mailhot]

On Mar 10 mai 2005 19:27, Mark Wielaard a écrit :

> > Any package present in the first repo but not in the second one
> has
> > probably not been tested with gcj yet.
> >
> > If a package is present in jpackage.org but is slightly different in
> > Fedora Extras that usualy means it had to include some gcj-specific
> > changes.
> >
> > (or the package itself has some build problem that was workarounded with
> > a
> > past vendot jvm but not any longer - this includes build dependency
> > loops,
> > api breaks, etc Sadly Apache/Jakarta packages are well represented in
> > the
> > semi-broken state too)
>
>  Do you happen to have lists of these cross-sections (on both lists, on
>  one list, on the small changes list)? 
Sadly, no :(

However a lot of the problems have been discussed on the jpackage-discuss
list. Moreover both jpackage & FC spec files should be available via
cvs/cvsweb so diff-ing is possible.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Andrew Overholt]

Hi Mar,

* Mark Wielaard <mark(a)klomp.org&gt; [2005-05-10 13:29]:
>  http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/package-list/ only has fc2 which seems
>  ancient. I found http://people.redhat.com/sopwith/new-packages.txt but I
>  don't know how up to date it is. 
Fedora Core 4 test 3 just came out today [1], [2].  It's the last scheduled
test release before Fedora Core 4's release [3].

The release notes [4] might be of interest to you (especially the list near the
end of packages added since Fedora Core 3).

HTH,

Andrew

[1]
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2005-May/msg00020.html
[2]
http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=02635#0
[3]
http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
[4]
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/3.92/i386/os...

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Gary,

On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 12:03 +0100, Gary Benson wrote:
>  Well, the main packages are Tomcat and Eclipse.  I can't speak
> for the
>  Eclipse guys, but to try out Tomcat you'd probably do something like:
>  
>   1. Install a FC4tX box.
>   2. yum install tomcat5 tomcat5-webapps tomcat5-admin-webapps
>   3. service tomcat5 start
>   4. Look at http://localhost:8080/
>  
>  Assuming they know their way around Tomcat all they need to know to
>  configure it is that CATALINA_HOME is /usr/share/tomcat5.
>  
>  Is that the kind of thing they're after? 
Yes, that is great. Do you have a pointer for more specific instructions
for point 1? (Debian user speaking here [sorry], I don't actually know
what FC4tX is or where I would download it.)

>  > Their mailinglist is harmony-dev(a)incubator.apache.org
>  
>  I'm going to be on holiday in five hours time, and I won't be back til
>  May 23rd, so I don't want to start a thread there that I won't be able
>  to respond to properly.  Would you mind mailing them what I just
>  wrote (assuming it's what you were after)? 
It would probably be better if someone more familiar with Fedora could
do the write up. If nobody else volunteers I can do a summary of this
thread. But don't blame me if it will sound like "well, it isn't Debian,
and the install is ackward, but..." :)

Cheers,

Mark

[Gary Benson]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
>  On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 12:03 +0100, Gary Benson wrote:
>  > Well, the main packages are Tomcat and Eclipse.  I can't speak for
>  > the Eclipse guys, but to try out Tomcat you'd probably do
>  > something like:
>  > 
>  >  1. Install a FC4tX box.
>  >  2. yum install tomcat5 tomcat5-webapps tomcat5-admin-webapps
>  >  3. service tomcat5 start
>  >  4. Look at http://localhost:8080/
>  > 
>  > Assuming they know their way around Tomcat all they need to know
>  > to configure it is that CATALINA_HOME is /usr/share/tomcat5.
>  > 
>  > Is that the kind of thing they're after?
>  
>  Yes, that is great. Do you have a pointer for more specific
>  instructions for point 1? (Debian user speaking here [sorry], I
>  don't actually know what FC4tX is or where I would download it.) 
Ha, me neither, I just grab the rpms straight from our build system ;)
Erm, http://fedora.redhat.com/download/test.html seems to cover it.

>  > > Their mailinglist is harmony-dev(a)incubator.apache.org
>  > 
>  > I'm going to be on holiday in five hours time, and I won't be back
>  > til May 23rd, so I don't want to start a thread there that I won't
>  > be able to respond to properly.  Would you mind mailing them what
>  > I just wrote (assuming it's what you were after)?
>  
>  It would probably be better if someone more familiar with Fedora
>  could do the write up. If nobody else volunteers I can do a summary
>  of this thread. But don't blame me if it will sound like "well, it
>  isn't Debian, and the install is ackward, but..." :) 
It's too late for me to do it now (sunny beaches are calling) but
hopefully someone else will...

Cheers,
Gary