mylar's dependencies

[Andrew Overholt]

Hi,

I've been trying to build mylar for inclusion in F7.  It's not going too
well due to difficulties with generating the build.xmls, etc.  I may
have a stop-gap for that, but now I'm hitting the problem of its
dependencies not being in Fedora or JPackage.  The jars it needs are (all in
org.eclipse.mylar.context.core/lib):

commons-logging.jar
  commons-logging-api.jar
  commons-codec-1.3.jar
  commons-httpclient-3.0.1.jar
  xmlrpc-common-3.0.jar
  xmlrpc-common-3.0-sources.jar
  xmlrpc-client-3.0.jar
  xmlrpc-client-3.0-sources.jar

I *think* we're fine with the above, but the next one I'm worried about:

ws-commons-util-1.0.1.jar
  ws-commons-util-1.0.1-sources.jar

I don't see this anywhere in JPackage or Fedora.  Does anyone know if there
is an RPM of it somewhere?  Anyone familiar with it or with packaging enough
to cook something up in the next few days?

Thanks,

Andrew

[Anthony Green]

On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:14 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> I *think* we're fine with the above, but the next one I'm worried about:
>
> ws-commons-util-1.0.1.jar
>   ws-commons-util-1.0.1-sources.jar
>
> I don't see this anywhere in JPackage or Fedora.  Does anyone know if there
> is an RPM of it somewhere?  Anyone familiar with it or with packaging enough
> to cook something up in the next few days?

I'll do this, although the thought of packaging up yet another Base64
encoder really makes me sad.

AG

[Andrew Overholt]

* Andrew Overholt  [2007-03-16 11:14]:
> xmlrpc-common-3.0.jar
>   xmlrpc-client-3.0.jar

Thanks to Anthony, the package containing the jars below has been
submitted for review and I'll review it ASAP.  I think we're going to
need an xmlrpc3 package for the above jars, however.  xmlrpc 3.0 looks
different enough from 2.0.1 and we have things that need 2.0.1 (some
plexus stuff), so I think having a separate package is acceptable.  Can
anyone see a problem with this?
> ws-commons-util-1.0.1.jar
>   ws-commons-util-1.0.1-sources.jar

Thanks,

Andrew

[Anthony Green]

Andrew Overholt wrote:
> xmlrpc 3.0 looks
> different enough from 2.0.1 and we have things that need 2.0.1 (some
> plexus stuff), so I think having a separate package is acceptable.  Can
> anyone see a problem with this?

FWIW, this makes sense to me.

AG

[Andrew Overholt]

* Anthony Green  [2007-03-19 13:02]:
> Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > xmlrpc 3.0 looks
> > different enough from 2.0.1 and we have things that need 2.0.1 (some
> > plexus stuff), so I think having a separate package is acceptable.  Can
> > anyone see a problem with this?
>
> FWIW, this makes sense to me.

Cool.  I've submitted for review here:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233004

If someone could review that, I'd really appreciate it.

Andrew