jogl package

[Anthony Green]

Here's my first stab at an RPM with the new scripts (find-and-nativify
and rebuild-gcj-db).  It's the OpenGL java bindings:

http://people.redhat.com/green/FC4

A couple of observations....

It's still not super-trivial to add native versions of jar files.  See
attached spec file.  On the other hand, I don't know how we could make
it simpler.

Our libjawt.so.6 is a bit of a problem.  I was unable to run any jogl
code with a non-gcj alternative, since they all pick
up /usr/lib/libjawt.so.6, which has references to our gtk peers and
fails to load.  Should libjawt.so be an alternative?  Or can we install
it somewhere gcj specific?

AG

[Thomas Fitzsimmons]

On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 16:41 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
>  Here's my first stab at an RPM with the new scripts
> (find-and-nativify
>  and rebuild-gcj-db).  It's the OpenGL java bindings:
>  
>  http://people.redhat.com/green/FC4
>  
>  A couple of observations....
>  
>  It's still not super-trivial to add native versions of jar files.  See
>  attached spec file.  On the other hand, I don't know how we could make
>  it simpler.
>  
>  Our libjawt.so.6 is a bit of a problem.  I was unable to run any jogl
>  code with a non-gcj alternative, since they all pick
>  up /usr/lib/libjawt.so.6, which has references to our gtk peers and
>  fails to load.  Should libjawt.so be an alternative?  Or can we install
>  it somewhere gcj specific?
>   
I think we should rename it libgcj-jawt.so.  libjawt-using apps will
look for $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/i386/libjawt.so which we already have a
symlink for in java-gcj-compat.

Tom

[Anthony Green]

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 01:24 -0400, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
>  I think we should rename it libgcj-jawt.so.  libjawt-using apps will
>  look for $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/i386/libjawt.so which we already have a
>  symlink for in java-gcj-compat. 
This is a fine idea for java-gcj-compat users, but what about the
others?  

AG

[Anthony Green]

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 01:24 -0400, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
>  
>  I think we should rename it libgcj-jawt.so.  libjawt-using apps will
>  look for $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/i386/libjawt.so which we already have a
>  symlink for in java-gcj-compat. 
Tom - this doesn't quite work as implemented.

It turns out that jogl does a System.loadLibrary("jawt") which fails
since we renamed the library.

I'm not sure what the best solution is. 

If we make libjawt.so an alternative, then it will mess up running non-
alternative java programs.  Maybe we should have stowed it away in a
libgcj specific directory instead of renaming it.

AG

[Thomas Fitzsimmons]

On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 11:40 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
>  On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 01:24 -0400, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
>  > 
>  > I think we should rename it libgcj-jawt.so.  libjawt-using apps will
>  > look for $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/i386/libjawt.so which we already have a
>  > symlink for in java-gcj-compat.
>  
>  Tom - this doesn't quite work as implemented.
>  
>  It turns out that jogl does a System.loadLibrary("jawt") which fails
>  since we renamed the library.
>   
This should work, if LD_LIBRARY_PATH points
to /usr/lib/jvm/jre/lib/%{_arch}.

Tom

[Anthony Green]

On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 14:56 -0400, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
>  This should work, if LD_LIBRARY_PATH points
>  to /usr/lib/jvm/jre/lib/%{_arch}. 
Ok - that works - but I don't think we should force people to set
LD_LIBRARY_PATH.

Maybe Runtime.loadLibrary could be taught to look there. 

AG

[Anthony Green]

On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 12:25 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
>  Maybe Runtime.loadLibrary could be taught to look there. 
I've filed a bug for this:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21741

AG