Re: [JPackage-discuss] Why libswt3-gtk2 isn't split between lib and plugin? also multiple SWTs and GCJ binaries
CCing fedora-devel-java-list
* rivasdiazx-jpackage@yahoo.com rivasdiazx-jpackage@yahoo.com [2005-04-08 20:15]:
Problem+Proposal 1: In both cases I found that the package libswt3-gtk2 installs SWT JARs and SOs as an independent library (in /usr/lib) and as an eclipse plugin (in /usr/share/eclipse/plugins). I think that this package should be splitted in lib and plugin. Something like libswt3-gtk2 and eclipse-swt3-gtk2 which depends on the former.
This doesn't work. The libraries are needed for SWT since it has native bits.
Problem+Proposal 2: I think that libswt3 should be a generic package and should exist libswt3-gtk2, libswt3-motif, even maybe libswt3-fox, which are platform dependant. [...]
This would be fine, but we'd have to add back in the motif stuff and figure out how to build the fox stuff. It's not impossible, but it'd be a lot of work. This is why we have libswt3-gtk2, BTW.
Problem+Proposal 3: FC4 will include Eclipse IDE and some plugins (very good!) but it will require the GCJ based java implementation, because they have compiled
Yes and no. I recently added the requirement on java-1.4.2-gcj-compat because we don't want people to think they're running our native packages when they are actually running them on a proprietary JVM. If someone has their alternatives set up for, say, the Sun JVM, our packages will work without the native bits (all the .jar.so files) entirely.
more GCJ bugs reported, etc), but it will make a fork on JPackage RPMs and users will not be able to update to new versions using JPackage RPMs.
David Walluck and I have been talking about adding some sections to our (FC) RPMs so that they are basically the same as the JPackage pure bytecode ones. I believe Tom Fitzsimmons has worked with the various depsolvers (yum, up2date) to make sure that arch->noarch and noarch->arch upgrades work fine.
Something like eclipse-jdt (-base?) and eclipse-jdt-gcj.
No. :) Many discussions took place about this and that's not the direction that we decided to take. Tom, Fernando, Gary, and others can explain more if necessary.
process should invoke the Java Engine the standard way (JNI?, /usr/bin/java?), then if I have GCJ as my selected Java virtual machine, Eclipse will run with GCJ (as it will run in base FC4), but if
That's how we've set things up with java-gcj-compat. If you have j-g-c set up as your java alternative and you run Eclipse, it'll use the natively-compiled stuff. If you have another JVM set as your alternative, it will seamlessly use it and ignore the native bits.
PD: I made a fast search on the list to find something on this, I apologize if it was discused before.
That's cool. Not much of this was discussed on list and I apologize for that. Thanks for the interest and suggestions! Hopefully my comments clear things up a bit.
Andrew
Andrew Overholt wrote:
- rivasdiazx-jpackage@yahoo.com rivasdiazx-jpackage@yahoo.com [2005-04-08 20:15]:
Problem+Proposal 1: In both cases I found that the package libswt3-gtk2 installs SWT JARs and SOs as an independent library (in /usr/lib) and as an eclipse plugin (in /usr/share/eclipse/plugins). I think that this package should be splitted in lib and plugin. Something like libswt3-gtk2 and eclipse-swt3-gtk2 which depends on the former.
This doesn't work. The libraries are needed for SWT since it has native bits.
With the new package layout in 3.1-fc, I believe that eclipse-gtk2 got folded into libswt3-gtk2. I suppose the argument is that some packages might require only swt, with no reliance on eclipse at all. However, I don't know if this is possible. Even our swingwt rpm requires eclipse. Clearly, eclipse-gtk2 requires libswt3-gtk2, but is it also true the other way around?
Something like eclipse-jdt (-base?) and eclipse-jdt-gcj.
No. :) Many discussions took place about this and that's not the direction that we decided to take. Tom, Fernando, Gary, and others can explain more if necessary.
The native bits won't hurt other jvm's. On the other hand, it would hurt gcj. If the idea is to allow the user to switch between jvm's, then we want them to be able to do it painlessly.
* David Walluck david@zarb.org [2005-04-09 15:47]:
With the new package layout in 3.1-fc, I believe that eclipse-gtk2 got folded into libswt3-gtk2. I suppose the argument is that some packages might require only swt, with no reliance on eclipse at all. However, I don't know if this is possible. Even our swingwt rpm requires eclipse. Clearly, eclipse-gtk2 requires libswt3-gtk2, but is it also true the other way around?
Oh yeah. I forgot that we had done that. I'm open to change if it's necessary but I forget what is in (or was, in our case :) eclipse-gtk2.
Andrew
Andrew Overholt wrote:
Oh yeah. I forgot that we had done that. I'm open to change if it's necessary but I forget what is in (or was, in our case :) eclipse-gtk2.
Unless there's a good reason not to, it makes sense to have libswt separate from any eclipse stuff so that using libswt doesn't pull in (parts of) the IDE.
* David Walluck david@zarb.org [2005-04-10 00:13]:
Andrew Overholt wrote:
Oh yeah. I forgot that we had done that. I'm open to change if it's necessary but I forget what is in (or was, in our case :) eclipse-gtk2.
Unless there's a good reason not to, it makes sense to have libswt separate from any eclipse stuff so that using libswt doesn't pull in (parts of) the IDE.
I folded eclipse-gtk2 into eclipse-platform to reduce the sub-package count. The libswt3-gtk2 package still contains just SWT stuff so you can run SWT apps with just that installed. If someone does decide to do the work to have motif sub-packages (or fox ones), then I guess whatever used to be in eclipse-gtk2 will have to be resurrected and similar -motif and -fox packages will need to be created.
Andrew
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:52:08AM -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
The libswt3-gtk2 package still contains just SWT stuff so you can run SWT apps with just that installed.
This is a really good idea. SWT is a much better toolkit IMO than either AWT or Swing, and it is very important that it's made available standalone if Java is to have any impact on the desktop.
* Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun@rogers.com [2005-04-10 21:35]:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:52:08AM -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
The libswt3-gtk2 package still contains just SWT stuff so you can run SWT apps with just that installed.
This is a really good idea. SWT is a much better toolkit IMO than either AWT or Swing, and it is very important that it's made available standalone if Java is to have any impact on the desktop.
What about Java-GNOME?
Andrew "plug-city" Overholt
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:14:22PM -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
What about Java-GNOME?
Java-GNOME is a fine project, but in all honesty, SWT is a tried-tested-and-true solution. Moreover it gives you cross-platform compatibility to Windows (and like it or not, Windows does matter on the desktop).
I don't use many Java apps on the desktop. In fact, I used to *hate* java for desktop app because of Swing (mind you, I do Java for a living :)). And yeah, AWT is a joke nowadays for anything serious, so it's not even worth a mention.
Eclipse changed all that for me. It showed me that a Java app can look and feel "native". It's nice. If I needed to do a desktop app and wanted to code it in Java, why pick anything else other than SWT for my toolkit?
Hi,
I think the message was't about the best Java GUI toolkit, but on how to package SWT and apps that depend on them. Nothing prevents the packaging of Java-Gnome and apps that depends on it, and it was done at least by Fedora.
If everyone would package just the "best" app/library for each category, How would sendmail/postfix and Gnome/KDE users feel?
But if you don't mind having your app running on Linux only (actually on BSD and other Unixes) Java-Gnome would be a better toolkit. Go see their websites and mailing list archives for specific reaons. :-) Actually, using Java-Gnome is not Unix-only, just nobody did the port for Windows. GTK itself and many apps, like Gimp and Ethereal, run fine under Windows using the GTK port.
[]s, Fernando Lozano
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:14:22PM -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
What about Java-GNOME?
Java-GNOME is a fine project, but in all honesty, SWT is a tried-tested-and-true solution. Moreover it gives you cross-platform compatibility to Windows (and like it or not, Windows does matter on the desktop).
I don't use many Java apps on the desktop. In fact, I used to *hate* java for desktop app because of Swing (mind you, I do Java for a living :)). And yeah, AWT is a joke nowadays for anything serious, so it's not even worth a mention.
Eclipse changed all that for me. It showed me that a Java app can look and feel "native". It's nice. If I needed to do a desktop app and wanted to code it in Java, why pick anything else other than SWT for my toolkit?
Just clarifying this discussion, which is going slightly off topic. As of the last official release, the Java-GNOME has a supported port of libgtk-java and libglade-java for Windows.
Please do not talk around them and make assumptions without first informing yourselves.
http://java-gnome.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/bin/view/Main/WindowsCompilation
This port has been going on for about a year (since the first tested were conducted successfully). These guys deserve credit for all their hard work, as do you all.
On Mon, 2005-11-04 at 00:58 -0300, Fernando Lozano wrote:
Hi,
I think the message was't about the best Java GUI toolkit, but on how to package SWT and apps that depend on them. Nothing prevents the packaging of Java-Gnome and apps that depends on it, and it was done at least by Fedora.
If everyone would package just the "best" app/library for each category, How would sendmail/postfix and Gnome/KDE users feel?
But if you don't mind having your app running on Linux only (actually on BSD and other Unixes) Java-Gnome would be a better toolkit. Go see their websites and mailing list archives for specific reaons. :-) Actually, using Java-Gnome is not Unix-only, just nobody did the port for Windows. GTK itself and many apps, like Gimp and Ethereal, run fine under Windows using the GTK port.
[]s, Fernando Lozano
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:14:22PM -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
What about Java-GNOME?
Java-GNOME is a fine project, but in all honesty, SWT is a tried-tested-and-true solution. Moreover it gives you cross-platform compatibility to Windows (and like it or not, Windows does matter on the desktop).
I don't use many Java apps on the desktop. In fact, I used to *hate* java for desktop app because of Swing (mind you, I do Java for a living :)). And yeah, AWT is a joke nowadays for anything serious, so it's not even worth a mention.
Eclipse changed all that for me. It showed me that a Java app can look and feel "native". It's nice. If I needed to do a desktop app and wanted to code it in Java, why pick anything else other than SWT for my toolkit?
JPackage-discuss mailing list JPackage-discuss@zarb.org https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/jpackage-discuss
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 00:58 -0300, Fernando Lozano wrote:
Actually, using Java-Gnome is not Unix-only, just nobody did the port for Windows.
...until recently:
http://java-gnome.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/bin/view/Main/WindowsCompilation
AG
* Fernando Lozano fernando@lozano.eti.br [2005-04-11 00:34]:
I think the message was't about the best Java GUI toolkit, but on how to package SWT and apps that depend on them. [...]
Agreed, we're getting off-topic.
But if you don't mind having your app running on Linux only (actually on BSD and other Unixes) Java-Gnome would be a better toolkit. Go see their websites and mailing list archives for specific reaons. :-) Actually, using Java-Gnome is not Unix-only, just nobody did the port for Windows.
libgtk-java and libglade-java now both build and can be used on Windows:
http://java-gnome.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/bin/view/Main/WindowsCompilation
Andrew
java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Andrew Overholt -
Anthony Green -
David Walluck -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Fernando Lozano -
Ray Auge