4:24 p.m.
From what I can tell, Fedora Core 4 provides a very good Java 1.4.2
development environment. The one thing that I cannot find is Java API
documentation (the equivalent of JPackage's java-1.4.2-sun-manual).
Have I just missed it, or is it not available?
Thanks!
--
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher i.pilcher(a)comcast.net
========================================================================
2:16 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-30-06 at 16:24 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
From what I can tell, Fedora Core 4 provides a very good Java 1.4.2
development environment. The one thing that I cannot find is Java API
documentation (the equivalent of JPackage's java-1.4.2-sun-manual).
Have I just missed it, or is it not available?
You haven't missed it, no. I believe Anthony Green did some packaging
of the libgcj or Classpath javadocs. Anthony? This could be a good
candidate for Fedora Extras (and potentially Fedora Core 5).
Andrew
3:31 p.m.
Andrew Overholt wrote:
You haven't missed it, no. I believe Anthony Green did some
packaging
of the libgcj or Classpath javadocs. Anthony? This could be a good
candidate for Fedora Extras (and potentially Fedora Core 5).
I found classpath-javadoc or JPackage.org, which looks like exactly what
I'm looking for. Unfortunately, it conflicts with Fedora's version of
jpackage-utils, which owns /usr/share/javadoc/java.
--
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher i.pilcher(a)comcast.net
========================================================================
3:44 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:16 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> Have I just missed it, or is it not available?
You haven't missed it, no. I believe Anthony Green did some packaging
of the libgcj or Classpath javadocs. Anthony? This could be a good
candidate for Fedora Extras (and potentially Fedora Core 5).
Here's the SRPM. I haven't tried building it in a while.
http://people.redhat.com/green/libgcj-docs-4.0.0-1.src.rpm
I look into submitting it to extras. This reminds me... we should
import the GNU Classpath package description html files into GCC.
Thanks,
AG
3:57 p.m.
* Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> [2005-07-05 16:44]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:16 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > Have I just missed it, or is it not available?
>
> You haven't missed it, no. I believe Anthony Green did some packaging
> of the libgcj or Classpath javadocs. Anthony? This could be a good
> candidate for Fedora Extras (and potentially Fedora Core 5).
Here's the SRPM. I haven't tried building it in a while.
http://people.redhat.com/green/libgcj-docs-4.0.0-1.src.rpm
It builds great for me. I think we should change it to require libgcj-src,
though, since that's what provides /usr/share/java/src-4.0.0.zip.
Otherwise, it looks good to me.
I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
By "I" do you mean "I'll"? I can look into it if you want.
Andrew
4:15 p.m.
Anthony Green wrote:
Here's the SRPM. I haven't tried building it in a while.
http://people.redhat.com/green/libgcj-docs-4.0.0-1.src.rpm
It should BuildRequire libgcj-src.
I look into submitting it to extras. This reminds me... we should
import the GNU Classpath package description html files into GCC.
I'd argue that it should be in Core (and that it should be built as
part of the libgcj SRPM). I'd also suggest having a
java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-doc RPM which creates appropriate symlinks in
/usr/share/javadoc. (See my other note about the ownership of
/usr/share/javadoc/java.)
Good stuff!
--
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher i.pilcher(a)comcast.net
========================================================================
4:39 p.m.
* Ian Pilcher <i.pilcher(a)comcast.net> [2005-07-05 17:16]:
>I look into submitting it to extras. This reminds me... we
should
>import the GNU Classpath package description html files into GCC.
I'd argue that it should be in Core (and that it should be built as
part of the libgcj SRPM). I'd also suggest having a
java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-doc RPM which creates appropriate symlinks in
/usr/share/javadoc. (See my other note about the ownership of
/usr/share/javadoc/java.)
I agree.
Andrew
4:53 p.m.
Andrew Overholt wrote:
* Ian Pilcher <i.pilcher(a)comcast.net> [2005-07-05 17:16]:
>
>I'd argue that it should be in Core (and that it should be built as
>part of the libgcj SRPM). I'd also suggest having a
>java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-doc RPM which creates appropriate symlinks in
>/usr/share/javadoc. (See my other note about the ownership of
>/usr/share/javadoc/java.)
I agree.
FYI - I've put an RFE in bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=162534
It's under GCC, since that's where libgcj comes from. Interested
parties on the Java side of things may want to add themselves to the cc
list.
On second thought, I believe that the "compatibility" package should
probably be named classpath-javadoc-libgcj-compat, since it will provide
compatibility with JPackage's classpath-javadoc.
Thanks!
--
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher i.pilcher(a)comcast.net
========================================================================
4:58 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:38 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
* Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> [2005-07-05 17:24]:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:57 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > > I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
On second thought, should we ship this or classpath-javadoc?
Why would it make sense to ship classpath javadoc? We don't ship
classpath.
AG
4:59 p.m.
* Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> [2005-07-05 17:58]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:38 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> * Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> [2005-07-05 17:24]:
> > On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:57 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > > > I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
>
> On second thought, should we ship this or classpath-javadoc?
Why would it make sense to ship classpath javadoc? We don't ship
classpath.
I know. I think this should go into the gcc RPM and not as a standalone
package.
Andrew
5:03 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:59 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
* Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> [2005-07-05 17:58]:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:38 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > * Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> [2005-07-05 17:24]:
> > > On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:57 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > > > > I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
> >
> > On second thought, should we ship this or classpath-javadoc?
>
> Why would it make sense to ship classpath javadoc? We don't ship
> classpath.
I know. I think this should go into the gcc RPM and not as a standalone
package.
Oh, right - I agree.
I wrote this package after we started hearing about the FC4 size
problems. I would have submitted a GCC spec file patch to Jakub
otherwise.
AG
5:03 p.m.
* Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> [2005-07-05 18:03]:
> I know. I think this should go into the gcc RPM and not as a
standalone
> package.
Oh, right - I agree.
I wrote this package after we started hearing about the FC4 size
problems. I would have submitted a GCC spec file patch to Jakub
otherwise.
We don't really have to worry about size restrictions for FC5 (yet) or for
FC4 updates.
Andrew
5:32 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 14:58 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:38 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> * Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> [2005-07-05 17:24]:
> > On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:57 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > > > I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
>
> On second thought, should we ship this or classpath-javadoc?
Why would it make sense to ship classpath javadoc? We don't ship
classpath.
For the record. Whether you use libgcj, kaffe or classpath as core class
libraries in principle the documentation generated by gjdoc should be
the same for all three. Since they all are build from GNU Classpath
sources. Modulo small bug fixes/not yet merged documentation updates of
course.
Cheers,
Mark
5:05 p.m.
Anthony Green wrote:
I look into submitting it to extras. This reminds me... we should
import the GNU Classpath package description html files into GCC.
Anthony -
I'm playing with the GCC SPEC file, working on adding a libgcj-doc
subpackage. Can you provide some more detail on the statement above
(i.e. where are the package descriptions found, and how would I "import"
them)?
Thanks!
--
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher i.pilcher(a)comcast.net
========================================================================
6:29 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 17:05 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
I'm playing with the GCC SPEC file, working on adding a
libgcj-doc
subpackage.
Great!
Can you provide some more detail on the statement above
(i.e. where are the package descriptions found, and how would I "import"
them)?
You'll want to look for the GNU Classpath project CVS sources.
I believe each java source directory contains a package.html file which
is incorporated into the HTML docs generated by gjdoc. Our libjava tree
in GCC is missing these files.
However...
I believe tromey has a plan to merge these into the FSF GCC HEAD tree
for future GCC releases (4.1, etc), but this is something we can't
really apply to the FSF 4.0 branch we're using in FC4.
I believe the 4.0 branch is frozen right now, so I don't know what the
best thing to do is. Either we merge those files into the FSF 4.0
branch and hope that Jakub picks it up in his FC4 gcc respin, or we a
patch to add the files and bundle that in the GCC RPM.
Maybe somebody who knows more about the FC GCC plan can suggest an
approach.
AG
6861
days inactive
6868
days old
java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
17 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andrew Overholt -
Anthony Green -
Ian Pilcher -
Mark Wielaard -
Tom Tromey