Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: walters@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://cdn.verbum.org/jogl.spec SRPM URL: http://cdn.verbum.org/jogl-1.1.0-1.fc9.src.rpm
%description The JOGL project hosts the development version of the Java Binding for the OpenGL API (JSR-231), and is designed to provide hardware-supported 3D graphics to applications written in Java. JOGL provides full access to the APIs in the OpenGL 2.0 specification as well as nearly all vendor extensions, and integrates with the AWT and Swing widget sets. It is part of a suite of open-source technologies initiated by the Game Technology Group at Sun Microsystems.
This package depends on the review of gluegen (bug 439627).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2008-03-29 17:21 EST ------- jogl was in Fedora, but was dropped: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/jogl/dead.package?rev=1.1&vie...
Is this still a problem with 1.1.0?
If not, you may want to verify that your package upgrades the old Fedora one cleanly; in particular, the old one had Epoch set to 1 so this package should inherit it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
------- Additional Comments From walters@redhat.com 2008-03-31 09:53 EST ------- Ohhh, crap =/ Thanks for taking a look, I'll ping upstream, maybe they have some plans on this. We really need a search on the packagedb...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
walters@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |green@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From walters@redhat.com 2008-03-31 10:21 EST ------- Anthony, can you elaborate a bit on the status of this? Is/was there any attempt to get upstream to relicense? I think JOGL development has been done under the SCA, so Sun should own copyright and be able to relicense.
We had the same problem with Mesa I believe - how was that resolved?
This library blocks the inclusion into Fedora of a lot of interesting software.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
walters@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From walters@redhat.com 2008-04-02 20:39 EST ------- Tom, I'm wondering if you know anything about this.
I just noticed too the LICENSE.txt in the jogl source has this note:
NOTE: The Original Code (as defined below) has been licensed to Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") under the SGI Free Software License B (Version 1.1), shown above ("SGI License"). Pursuant to Section 3.2(3) of the SGI License, Sun is distributing the Covered Code to you under an alternative license ("Alternative License"). This Alternative License includes all of the provisions of the SGI License except that Section 2.2 and 11 are omitted. Any differences between the Alternative License and the SGI License are offered solely by Sun and not by SGI.
Were the 2.2 and 11 the problematic sections? From looking at the FSF's web site on this, 2.2 and 11 look like the objectionable parts.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2008-04-03 09:37 EST ------- No, the whole darned license is problematic. Nothing under anything FreeB derived is ok for Fedora.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |182235
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|182235 | OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-04-06 12:36 EST ------- So we must push in to Livna/RPMFusion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kwizart@gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-04-14 21:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)
This library blocks the inclusion into Fedora of a lot of interesting software.
Indeed! Scilab 5 which will be relicensed as CeCill won't be available (As I'm trying to package it).
For now, gluegen doesn't seems affected by the FE-Legal issue. Someone interested in the review ?
For the jogl case, there is a possibility to work on livna/RPM Fusion until an alternative solution is available. But I wonder if we can provide the jogl package twice: once of RPMFusion freeworld and the other with RPMFusion nonfree (for Cg support).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
------- Additional Comments From walters@redhat.com 2008-04-15 10:08 EST ------- Feel free to take the spec for use elsewhere, of course.
I think it is worth trying again to open up a conversation with SGI about this issue too.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CANTFIX Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2008-05-12 15:30 EST ------- Closing as CANTFIX. Sorry guys.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Bug 439630 depends on bug 439627, which changed state.
Bug 439627 Summary: Review Request: gluegen - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439627
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CANTFIX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Bug 439630 depends on bug 439627, which changed state.
Bug 439627 Summary: Review Request: gluegen - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439627
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CANTFIX |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
------- Additional Comments From walters@redhat.com 2008-05-12 16:03 EST ------- As a possible alternative, someone should investigate: http://lwjgl.org/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2008-05-12 16:11 EST ------- lwjgl is no-good for Fedora, native/common/extgl.h is SGI Free B.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-09-23 12:25:10 EDT --- Hi, all:
I think this package is now okay, because SGI License B is now under MIT: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-September/msg00035.ht...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #13 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2008-09-23 12:32:30 EDT --- Indeed. If someone wanted to reopen this and pursue review, I would lift the FE-Legal block.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #14 from Anthony Green green@redhat.com 2008-09-23 12:53:09 EDT --- We don't need to re-review this package do we? jogl was already in FC5 and FC6. I pulled it prior to 7 because of the licensing problem. It's currently in cvs as a dead.package. Let's just revive that package instead. Does somebody want to co-maintain this with me?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #15 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com 2008-09-23 13:18:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14)
We don't need to re-review this package do we? jogl was already in FC5 and FC6. I pulled it prior to 7 because of the licensing problem. It's currently in cvs as a dead.package. Let's just revive that package instead. Does somebody want to co-maintain this with me?
I can help with co-maintaining this package(along with gluegen) But despite the cvs creation side (If already done, no needs to re-do it); I would prefer to formally review this package: either I submit the review request or you (like it was originally done)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #16 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-09-23 13:25:19 EDT --- I think re-review of this package is needed. - Current Fedora guidelines says that more than "3 months" old spec file needs re-review.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages#Claiming_Ownership_of... - Also Java guideline is established after F-8 (?) so FC6 based Java spec file needs update anyway IMO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #17 from Anthony Green green@redhat.com 2008-09-23 13:52:02 EDT --- Ok. I am not going to resubmit, but I'd be happy to review.
BTW, upstream (Sun) is asking me: "Question: in the short term, do we need to explicitly re-release the sources for JOGL 1.1.1 (*) with the old FreeB headers replaced with the new license? Or can Linux distributions use the existing sources? We have already transitioned our development to JOGL 2.0 and would prefer to make the license changes only in that branch. "
spot - we're OK with no upstream change, right?
AG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #18 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2008-09-23 14:00:34 EDT --- Yes, because of how FreeB is written, we're fine with no upstream header change.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #19 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com 2008-10-20 20:34:32 EDT --- @Antony I cannot have both gluegen and jogl to build separately, even if they use the same snapshot. Here are the current attempts: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/jogl-1.1.1-1.fc8.kwizart.src.rpm http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/jogl.spec
http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/gluegen-1.1.1-1.fc8.kwizart.src.rpm http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/gluegen.spec Do you have any advices ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CANTFIX |
--- Comment #20 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com 2008-10-20 20:37:20 EDT --- reopened
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235 |
--- Comment #21 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2008-10-22 16:52:38 EDT --- Lifting FE-Legal.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #22 from D Haley mycae@yahoo.com 2008-11-21 23:22:06 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=324396) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=324396) Fix dirs for install target
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #23 from D Haley mycae@yahoo.com 2008-11-21 23:23:19 EDT --- If I remove your patch0, then all is well with the build, however as you point out that is only because I have gluegen in my build dir.
Could one possibly, as part of the gluegen package, simply install the glugegen source into /usr/share/gluegen/, and then with patch0, instead of commenting out the gluegen location, remap it to /usr/share/glugen?
Also, as per the previous patch, some of the %install target locations were not quite right
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
D Haley mycae@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |472639
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Chitlesh GOORAH cgoorah@yahoo.com.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cgoorah@yahoo.com.au
--- Comment #24 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoorah@yahoo.com.au 2008-12-01 13:45:22 EDT --- BUILD FAILED Target "gluegen.cpptasks.detect.os" does not exist in the project "JOGL". It is used from target "base.init".
with gluegen rpms built from gluegen-1.1.1-1.fc8.kwizart.src.rpm.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Levente Farkas lfarkas@lfarkas.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lfarkas@lfarkas.org
--- Comment #25 from Levente Farkas lfarkas@lfarkas.org 2008-12-15 11:04:53 EDT --- does it means lwjgl also good for fedora?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #26 from D Haley mycae@yahoo.com 2008-12-20 00:28:02 EDT --- https://jogl.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=300 may be of use. A gentoo maintainer has patched their build process. Its quite old, though.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Bug 439630 depends on bug 439627, which changed state.
Bug 439627 Summary: Review Request: gluegen - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439627
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|Reopened | Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 Resolution| |NOTABUG
--- Comment #27 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-01-13 18:47:43 EDT --- Since this depends on gluegen, which was closed because the submitter neglected to comment after several months, this is left in an unreviewable state. I'm going to go ahead and close it, although if someone wants to re-submit gluegen (and respond to review commentary) then I guess this can be re-re-reopened and made to depend on the new gluegen review ticket.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |496433(RussianFedora)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #28 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2009-12-08 17:59:55 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=377049) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=377049) With jogl/gluegen 2.0, a first patch to remove some hardcoded path to gluegen path
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |henriquecsj@gmail.com
--- Comment #29 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2009-12-08 20:21:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #28)
Created an attachment (id=377049)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=377049) [details]
With jogl/gluegen 2.0, a first patch to remove some hardcoded path to gluegen path
Thank you! I'll give it a try.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #30 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2009-12-08 21:17:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #28)
Created an attachment (id=377049)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=377049) [details]
With jogl/gluegen 2.0, a first patch to remove some hardcoded path to gluegen path
I'm getting my source code from here http://kenai.com/projects/jogl/sources/jogl-git/show Is that the same place you are getting yours, Sylvestre?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org
--- Comment #31 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2009-12-21 08:29:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #30) Sorry, I missed your question. Yes, I confirm that my patch applies against this version. You still have to edit: /home/sylvestre/dev/jogl2.git/make/build.xml /home/sylvestre/dev/jogl2.git/make/build-nativewindow.xml /home/sylvestre/dev/jogl2.git/make/build-jogl.xml to set the correct paths to gluegen. I will probably update this too and try to make it applied to upstream.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #32 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-01-15 04:23:23 EST --- Could we upload JOGL 1.1 into Fedora/Redhat this way ? And plan to do the gluegen/jogl separation when JOGL 2.0 is released (which will be trivial since it will be done upstream).
Thanks PS: can someone reopen this bug ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Chen Lei supercyper@163.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |supercyper@163.com
--- Comment #33 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-01-28 01:56:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #32)
Could we upload JOGL 1.1 into Fedora/Redhat this way ? And plan to do the gluegen/jogl separation when JOGL 2.0 is released (which will be trivial since it will be done upstream). Thanks PS: can someone reopen this bug ?
Hi, Sylvestre. I think you'd better open a new bugzilla report and mark this bugzilla report as a duplicate. PS: Which packages are not in fedora right now for packaging scilab 5.20?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #34 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-01-28 10:59:35 EST ---
jogl, jgraphx, jhdf (see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/Scilab but note that net-cdf-java & fits dependencies are far from mandatory) and jlatexmath (http://forge.scilab.org/index.php/p/jlatexmath/)
Note only jogl is necessary for Scilab 5.1.1.
Anyway, I followed your comment and wrote bug #559623
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #35 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-01-28 12:25:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #34)
jogl, jgraphx, jhdf (see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/Scilab but note that net-cdf-java & fits dependencies are far from mandatory) and jlatexmath (http://forge.scilab.org/index.php/p/jlatexmath/) Note only jogl is necessary for Scilab 5.1.1. Anyway, I followed your comment and wrote bug #559623
Hi!
Because Fedora is a "Breeding Edge" distrowatch, I think we should skip scilab 5.1.1 and begin to build scilab 5.2.0.
I realized from the changelog of jogl that the GlueGen runtime classes have been removed from jogl.jar. I think we can pull the source directly from upstream's vcs and package jogl and GlueGen separately.
Should all files in the prerequirements-scilab-5.2.0-src.tar.gz(such as jing.jar, jimi.jar, etc.) to be packaged before packaging scilab?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #36 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-01-28 12:39:14 EST --- Well, I don't know which changelog you are talking about but the version jogl 1.1 tarball has both gluegen and jogl together. You can create separate packages of them without any problems.
If you are talking about jogl 2.0, it is still a dev version and there are several problems with it: * a lot of changes occurred in the API * the last modifications on jogl git are three months old. * there is not ETA on the release of a stable version (I tried a few time to contact upstream about that and about contributing to jogl but I never received any answer)
For all these reasons, jogl 1.1 should be packaged first.
About the prerequirements, I don't know any dependencies of Scilab using jing.jar or jimi.jar ?!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #37 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-01-28 13:14:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #36)
Well, I don't know which changelog you are talking about but the version jogl 1.1 tarball has both gluegen and jogl together. You can create separate packages of them without any problems. If you are talking about jogl 2.0, it is still a dev version and there are several problems with it:
- a lot of changes occurred in the API
- the last modifications on jogl git are three months old.
- there is not ETA on the release of a stable version (I tried a few time to
contact upstream about that and about contributing to jogl but I never received any answer) For all these reasons, jogl 1.1 should be packaged first.
If so, I think we can create a jogl1 package instead of jogl to push jogl 1.1 to the fedora repo like qt3 and qt(qt4). What is the version of gluegen that included in jogl 1.1 tarball?
About the prerequirements, I don't know any dependencies of Scilab using jing.jar or jimi.jar ?!
There is a Prerequirements to compile Scilab 5.2.0 from scilab's site. See http://www.scilab.org/download/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #38 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-01-28 13:25:18 EST --- gluegen (with jogl) has the same version.
About the jing.jar and jimi.jar, I reported a bug upstream: http://bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6524
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #39 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-01-28 13:39:34 EST --- Do you mean gluegen should ship with jogl? Is this possible to build gluegen before build jogl using source from http://download.java.net/media/gluegen/builds/archive/ or from certain git revision?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #40 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-01-28 13:46:10 EST --- Yes, gentoo is doing it: http://gpo.zugaina.org/dev-java/jogl/ChangeLog and http://gpo.zugaina.org/dev-java/gluegen/ChangeLog
(while Debian is not. Debian uses the one provided in jogl tarballs)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #41 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-01-28 14:08:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #40)
Yes, gentoo is doing it: http://gpo.zugaina.org/dev-java/jogl/ChangeLog and http://gpo.zugaina.org/dev-java/gluegen/ChangeLog (while Debian is not. Debian uses the one provided in jogl tarballs)
Since the original "Review Request" for gluegen and jogl aren closed, you or someone should create new "Review Request" for those two.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
The closed "Review Request" can't be seen by fedora package sponsor.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #42 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-01-28 14:30:13 EST --- What about ? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559623
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #43 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-01-28 14:43:00 EST --- You can follow the instruction below. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Create_Your_Review_Req...
You need to edit the Review Summary and upload the srpm. The "Review Request" for jogl and gluegen should be two separate bugzilla reports.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #44 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-01-28 15:39:08 EST --- Well, I am not a Fedora contributor neither a user... Do you think someone can handle this for me ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #45 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-01-29 00:39:36 EST --- Sylvestre， I think Henrique may be helpful to package gluegen and jogl. Try to contact him and let him known what gentoo is doing.
http://gpo.zugaina.org/dev-java/jogl/ChangeLog and http://gpo.zugaina.org/dev-java/gluegen/ChangeLog
(while Debian is not. Debian uses the one provided in jogl tarballs)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #46 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-01-29 03:13:52 EST --- OK, thanks. I just sent an email to Henrique about that.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #47 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-01-31 10:10:45 EST --- Hello, I will, then, continue to try to package JOGL/gluegen to make scilab possible in Fedora. Although not much experienced, I believe that with some help it will be possible. I travel now, in February 3 and return on February 9, but I'll try to leave at least an early draft.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |j.heather@surrey.ac.uk
--- Comment #48 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-02-01 11:17:03 EST --- I am very glad to hear about this! I use JOGL/gluegen a lot for my OpenGL teaching, and it would be fantastic to have it in Fedora.
When it turns up, could we please have an F12 build of the JOGL stuff as well as rawhide?
Looking forward to it.
James
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #49 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-21 18:21:51 EST --- Hi, after a little work this weekend I've made some progress with this package, but, to be honest, I'm a little confused about this "gentoo way" to uncouple JOGL/gluegen. This patch do not make much sense to me[1] and looking after the ebuild code[2] I have a impression that the gentoo guys are doing almost the same that we are doing. What I have in mind is to build a separated gluegen package, but continue to use this gluegen that cames with JOGL source to build it, then, after JOGL is done, we can simply rm this gluegen codes. Since both, JOGL and his gluegen are compiled from source, this can be one easy way to get the package ready.
[1] - http://gentoo-overlays.zugaina.org/java-overlay/portage/dev-java/jogl/files/... [2] - http://gentoo-overlays.zugaina.org/java-overlay/portage/dev-java/jogl/jogl-1...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #50 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-02-22 02:05:01 EST --- Normally we should build jogl against the system-wide copy of gluegen, that is to say we must del the code of gluegen in %prep section.
%prep %setup -q %patch0 -p1 %patch1 -p1 #remove bundled gluegen rm -rf (bundled gluegen)
Regards,
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #51 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-02-22 02:35:17 EST ---
Normally we should build jogl against the system-wide copy of gluegen
In other words, against the one we've just built?
So package gluegen:
Requires: jogl
and package jogl:
Requires: gluegen BuildRequires: jogl
Are you going to have a separate jogl-javadoc package, by the way, or will that come as part of the jogl package?
Really glad to see progress on this!
James
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #52 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-22 07:03:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #51)
Are you going to have a separate jogl-javadoc package, by the way, or will that come as part of the jogl package?
I'm going to build a separated javadock package. We already have this functional gluegen package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439627#c35 but the main problem with JOGL is that it needs a side by side copy of gluegen to build his build.xml. The doubt here is if we can use this bundled gluegen in this initial step and discard it. This bundled gluegen and our packaged gluegen will be the same. Use the bundled gluegen only means that the package can be done without major hacking in JOGL (which, incidentally, are out of my ability). Maybe it becames clearer if I post here one draft. I'm working on it. =)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #53 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-02-23 23:05:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #51)
Normally we should build jogl against the system-wide copy of gluegen
In other words, against the one we've just built?
So package gluegen:
Requires: jogl
and package jogl:
Requires: gluegen BuildRequires: jogl
Are you going to have a separate jogl-javadoc package, by the way, or will that come as part of the jogl package?
Really glad to see progress on this!
James
gluegen not depends on jogl, we need to build a gluegen which can works fine with jogl 1.1.1a. We need find a svn or git version gluegen source which has the same codes compared to the bundled gluegen in jogl or find a version which is compatible with jogl 1.1.1a.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #54 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-02-23 23:08:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #52)
(In reply to comment #51)
Are you going to have a separate jogl-javadoc package, by the way, or will that come as part of the jogl package?
I'm going to build a separated javadock package. We already have this functional gluegen package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439627#c35 but the main problem with JOGL is that it needs a side by side copy of gluegen to build his build.xml. The doubt here is if we can use this bundled gluegen in this initial step and discard it.
It's definitely not. You must using a git or svn version of gluegen. Maybe you need wrote some patches for gluegen to let jogl 1.1.1a build success with it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #55 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-25 13:34:06 EST --- Found it: svn checkout https://gluegen.dev.java.net/svn/gluegen/tags/1.0b06a gluegen --username user Just a few more fixes and I post here a draft.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #56 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-25 19:09:05 EST --- Have just updated gluegen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439627 If gluegen is OK we're almost there. =)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #57 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-25 21:59:41 EST --- Here is my first build. I do not want to go to bed without posting it. Please, keep in mind that it is a draft. SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/jogl/1.1.1/1/jogl.spec SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/jogl/1.1.1/1/jogl-1.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
rpmlint: [lonely@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/jogl-1.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm jogl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microsystems -> Micro systems, Micro-systems, Ecosystems jogl.src:75: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build rm -rf %{buildroot} jogl.src:78: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_javadir} jogl.src:80: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar jogl.src:81: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build pushd %{buildroot}%{_javadir} jogl.src:88: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build install -dm 755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir} jogl.src:90: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{buildroot}%{_libdir} jogl.src:93: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build install -dm 755 %{buildroot}%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} jogl.src:95: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{buildroot}%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} jogl.src:96: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ln -s %{name}-%{version} %{buildroot}%{_javadocdir}/%{name} # ghost symlink jogl.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install jogl.src: W: no-%install-section jogl.src: W: invalid-url Source2: gluegen-1.0.20102502svn.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
[lonely@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i686/jogl* jogl.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microsystems -> Micro systems, Micro-systems, Ecosystems jogl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libjogl_awt.so jogl.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libjogl_awt.so jogl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libjogl.so jogl.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libjogl.so jogl.i686: W: no-documentation jogl-javadoc.i686: W: non-standard-group Development/Java jogl-javadoc.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm jogl-manual.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) documetation -> documentation, documentary, documented jogl-manual.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Usermanual -> User manual, User-manual, Wassermann jogl-manual.i686: W: non-standard-group Development/Java 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #58 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-02-26 03:50:10 EST --- Well done!
I think you already know but when I tried 'rpmbuild -bb jogl.spec', I get: + /usr/bin/unzip -qq /home/Sylvestre/rpmbuild/SOURCES/jogl-1.1.1a-src.zip replace gluegen/doc/manual/index.html? [y]es, [n]o, [A]ll, [N]one, [r]ename:
It is normal ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #59 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-26 05:12:49 EST --- Yes, it is normal when you try to build in a dirt /home/Sylvestre/rpmbuild/BUILD (from previous attempts). When Koji builds the packages it uses always a clean directory, but I can solve this because it is annoying. Maybe Chen Lei could guide me through this rpmlint issues.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #60 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-02-26 05:25:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #59)
Yes, it is normal when you try to build in a dirt /home/Sylvestre/rpmbuild/BUILD (from previous attempts). When Koji builds the packages it uses always a clean directory, but I can solve this because it is annoying.
I suspect this is related to the rpmlint warning:
jogl.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
Is this something to with not having an %install section? I am not quite sure what's going on there. I expected to see an %install but there isn't one.
Maybe the %clean isn't being fired for some reason. That ought to be getting rid of the previous build attempts.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #61 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-02-26 05:28:01 EST --- In fact, I think it's normal to start the %install section with
%install rm -rf %{buildroot}
That would make rpmlint happier, and also solve your problem. At the moment, you'll hit this issue if the previous build failed, because %clean won't get executed, and the next build will get confused because of the existing files.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #62 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-26 05:34:55 EST --- Thanks, James. Soon I post an update here.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #63 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-26 07:29:33 EST --- SPEC: http://lonelyspooky.com/uploads/SRPMs/jogj/1.1.1-2/jogl.spec SRPM: http://lonelyspooky.com/uploads/SRPMs/jogj/1.1.1-2/jogl-1.1.1-2.fc11.src.rpm
rpmlint is a bit more happy now:
[virtual@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i586/jogl* jogl.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libjogl_awt.so jogl.i586: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libjogl_awt.so jogl.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libjogl.so jogl.i586: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libjogl.so jogl.i586: W: no-documentation jogl-debuginfo.i586: E: empty-debuginfo-package jogl-javadoc.i586: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
[virtual@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/jogl-1.1.1-2.fc11.src.rpm jogl.src:75: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build rm -rf %{buildroot} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #64 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-02-26 07:38:37 EST --- I wonder that "Source2: gluegen-1.0.20102502svn.tar.gz" is not needed.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #65 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-02-26 08:19:12 EST --- Do you really need the %post section? It seems odd. It looks as though the "ln -s" in the %install, and the %ghost line in %files, should be enough to create the symlink without needing to rm and ln -s in %post.
Do you need to use restorecon to set the selinux contexts, by the way? I've noticed that in some spec files before. But maybe it all happens automatically.
Might be worth installing the rpm, and then trying
restorecon -v $(rpm -ql jogl jogl-javadoc jogl-manual)
If it tells you it's changing anything, that probably means you need to use restorecon in %post.
James
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #66 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-26 15:42:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #64)
I wonder that "Source2: gluegen-1.0.20102502svn.tar.gz" is not needed.
As described here[1] JOGL relies on gluegen's source tree: "Check out the GlueGen source tree: JOGL relies on the GlueGen project to autogenerate most of the Java and JNI code for the OpenGL interface. The jogl/ and gluegen/ workspaces must be side-by-side in order for JOGL to build properly." So, it is not enough to have gluegen packaged in order to build JOGL, we'll need gluegen's source in the first stage. Here goes the error message: [lonely@localhost make]$ ant Buildfile: build.xml
BUILD FAILED /home/lonely/jogl/jogl/make/build.xml:62: Cannot find ../../gluegen/make/gluegen-cpptasks.xml imported from /home/lonely/jogl/jogl/make/build.xml
(In reply to comment #65)
Do you really need the %post section? It seems odd. It looks as though the "ln -s" in the %install, and the %ghost line in %files, should be enough to create the symlink without needing to rm and ln -s in %post.
You are completely right, I didn't noticed it.
restorecon -v $(rpm -ql jogl jogl-javadoc jogl-manual)
restorecon returns nothing: restorecon -v $(rpm -ql jogl jogl-javadoc jogl-manual) [lonely@localhost ~]$ restorecon -v $(rpm -ql jogl jogl-javadoc jogl-manual) [lonely@localhost ~]$
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #67 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-02-26 21:47:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #66)
(In reply to comment #64)
I wonder that "Source2: gluegen-1.0.20102502svn.tar.gz" is not needed.
As described here[1] JOGL relies on gluegen's source tree: "Check out the GlueGen source tree: JOGL relies on the GlueGen project to autogenerate most of the Java and JNI code for the OpenGL interface. The jogl/ and gluegen/ workspaces must be side-by-side in order for JOGL to build properly." So, it is not enough to have gluegen packaged in order to build JOGL, we'll need gluegen's source in the first stage. Here goes the error message: [lonely@localhost make]$ ant Buildfile: build.xml
BUILD FAILED /home/lonely/jogl/jogl/make/build.xml:62: Cannot find ../../gluegen/make/gluegen-cpptasks.xml imported from /home/lonely/jogl/jogl/make/build.xml
You need patch build.xml, it's easy to do say.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #68 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-26 22:24:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #67)
You need patch build.xml, it's easy to do say.
I know that the ideal is to build JOGL without using this gluegen source, but, as I can see, even the gentoo guys didn't make it. I'm not an experienced programmer and, maybe, this is just one thing that is beyond my skills. Use this source looks mandatory because to build JOGL without it may need to rewrite great amounts of code.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #69 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-02-27 12:16:48 EST --- Does that not suggest that it would be better off as a single spec file that builds both gluegen and jogl? I am not sure what the motivation is for splitting into two packages if the gluegen source is needed to build both of them.
James
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #70 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-27 19:46:46 EST --- I'll probably need some help with this no-soname issue. Ideas, guys?
(In reply to comment #69)
Does that not suggest that it would be better off as a single spec file that builds both gluegen and jogl? I am not sure what the motivation is for splitting into two packages if the gluegen source is needed to build both of them.
James
Build both from the same source was my first idea, but since they are different projects, maybe, provide a separated gluegen is the best practice.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #71 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-02-28 04:25:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #68)
(In reply to comment #67)
You need patch build.xml, it's easy to do say.
I know that the ideal is to build JOGL without using this gluegen source, but, as I can see, even the gentoo guys didn't make it. I'm not an experienced programmer and, maybe, this is just one thing that is beyond my skills. Use this source looks mandatory because to build JOGL without it may need to rewrite great amounts of code.
I think this will let package unproved. You may need someone for help.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #72 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-28 08:33:02 EST --- It will be a great loss to Fedora if Scilab remains outside of our repos (since JOGL is a dependency of it) because this is probably the best software available for simulation and modeling. Particularly I would not see a great problem in bringing the source code of gluegen with JOGL because the gluegen's code follows the requirements of not using precompiled jars and is deleted immediately after the stage where JOGL finish to get the information it needs. I'm not familiar with the procedures of RPMFusion, but I think it might be a good alternative if this package could move to there if it is not acceptable in our official repos. If this is our only alternative, Sclab will need to be moved as well.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #73 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-02-28 10:48:34 EST --- Haven't you tried using uncouple-gluegen.patch from gentoo?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #74 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-02-28 10:50:01 EST --- Also
%{_javadir}/*.jar %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libjogl.so %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libjogl_awt.so
must changed to %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.jar %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.so
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #75 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-28 11:29:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #73)
Haven't you tried using uncouple-gluegen.patch from gentoo?
Could you, please, take a look at the patch? As I can see it is doing nothing.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #76 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-02-28 17:27:45 EST --- I'm not really following this. If gluegen and jogl are separate projects but jogl needs the gluegen project to compile, does that not mean it makes sense to do this as a single spec file? I don't understand the motivation for splitting into two, if one needs the source of the other to compile. That to me sounds like effectively a single project, regardless of whether it's split into two projects upstream.
Am I missing something?
James
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #77 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-02-28 17:35:50 EST --- BTW this is good and important work--it will be really good to get JOGL into Fedora. That's true especially if it means Scilab too, but JOGL is also important in its own right, for Java development.
I presume you've seen the SUSE JOGL stuff at
http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/3/srodzaj/1/search/jogl
?
The OpenSUSE RPMs install just fine on F12, so they're obviously doing something right... the source RPMs won't compile on Fedora, though. But there might be some good clues in there. They seem to be building jogl and gluegen in the same spec file.
James
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #78 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-28 17:52:08 EST --- Yes, I've seen opensuse's mandriva's and gentoo's way. This question seems to be more philosophical than technical. So I decided to send the e-mail asking for guidance to the lists. It seems to me that the work will be stuck until they decide on the better way, so I think I'll do ALL the ways and wait the decision. =)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #79 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-02-28 21:19:37 EST --- Created an attachment (id=396941) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=396941) gentoo' patch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #80 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-02-28 21:53:26 EST --- Thank you. This is quite different from the patch that found previously. I'll give it a try.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #81 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-01 10:18:30 EST --- [lonely@localhost jogl-1.1.1a-src]$ patch -p0 < uncouple-gluegen.patch patching file jogl/make/build.xml Hunk #1 succeeded at 131 (offset 4 lines).
[lonely@localhost make]$ ant Buildfile: build.xml
BUILD FAILED /home/lonely/rpmbuild/SOURCES/jogl-1.1.1a-src/jogl/make/build.xml:62: Cannot find ../../gluegen/make/gluegen-cpptasks.xml imported from /home/lonely/rpmbuild/SOURCES/jogl-1.1.1a-src/jogl/make/build.xml
Total time: 0 seconds
I was looking at the source and skip this "searching gluegen's code" may be too much work, but if we provide the gluegen-source as Hans have suggested it it relatively easy to declare another gluegen root.
<property name="gluegen.root" value="../../gluegen" />
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #82 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-03-01 16:01:53 EST --- FYI, in Debian/Ubuntu, for the past 2 or 3 years, I am packaging JOGL and Gluegen as a single package. There is not much libraries using Gluegen and, for now, nobody complained about the fact that JOGL and Gluegen are provided into the same package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #83 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-01 21:26:49 EST --- I guess we have some precedent cases. The discussion can be found here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-February/131665.html
So, I'll continue this package with BuildRequires: gluegen-source.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #84 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-09 11:14:01 EST --- Hi, sorry for the delay, but I'm a little sick this days. As you can see, I've updated gluegen to build a package named gluegen-source. By doing this, I'm, now, able to build jogl without gluegen side by side and my spec now BuildRequires: gluegen-source. I've made a patch to point my build.xml to the correc (and new) location of gluegen. Despite the fact that my local copy of jogl builds ok, I'm having problems with my rpmbuild version:
BUILD FAILED /home/lonely/rpmbuild/BUILD/jogl/make/build.xml:1562: The following error occurred while executing this line: /home/lonely/rpmbuild/BUILD/jogl/make/build.xml:487: The following error occurred while executing this line: /usr/share/gluegen-source/gluegen/make/build.xml:458: The following error occurred while executing this line: /usr/share/gluegen-source/gluegen/make/build.xml:378: The following error occurred while executing this line: /usr/share/gluegen-source/gluegen/make/gluegen-cpptasks.xml:394: Problem: failed to create task or type compiler Cause: The name is undefined. Action: Check the spelling. Action: Check that any custom tasks/types have been declared. Action: Check that any <presetdef>/<macrodef> declarations have taken place.
Total time: 4 seconds erro: Status de saÃda de /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.lV0Zq0 inválido (%build)
That is weird... one version builds and another not.
spec: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/jogl/1.1.1/2/jogl.spec srpm: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/jogl/1.1.1/2/fix-buildxml.patch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #85 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-09 11:23:42 EST --- Created an attachment (id=398837) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398837) patch to correctly point build.xml
This is a patch to correctly point build.xml
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #86 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-09 12:52:01 EST --- Solved. I'm able to build now: spec: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/jogl/1.1.1/3/jogl.spec srpm: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/jogl/1.1.1/3/jogl-1.1.1-3.fc12.src.rpm
rpmlint has 5 complains: [lonely@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i686/jogl-* jogl.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microsystems -> Micro systems, Micro-systems, Ecosystems jogl.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libjogl_awt.so jogl.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libjogl.so jogl.i686: W: no-documentation jogl-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
I guess we should ignore this "jogl.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microsystems -> Micro systems, Micro-systems, Ecosystems" end this "jogl.i686: W: no-documentation", but I don't know hot to fix the others.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #87 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.ledru@scilab.org 2010-03-09 13:24:11 EST --- I don't think the soname missing is really an issue since .so should never be called directly. Only called through Java. About the debuginfo without sources, I am not familiar with fedora but I am pretty sure you should copy the native source (C) into a dedicated package into a directory where gdb can find them.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #88 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-03-09 13:42:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #86)
jogl.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libjogl_awt.so jogl.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libjogl.so
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JN...
Looks like the .so files need to go into %{_libdir}/%{name}. I suspect that will get rid of the warning; but it needs doing either way.
Good work--this looks like it's coming along nicely.
James
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Stephen R. Saucier ssauci1@umbc.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ssauci1@umbc.edu
--- Comment #89 from Stephen R. Saucier ssauci1@umbc.edu 2010-03-09 16:23:35 EST --- Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior:
rpm -q --filesbypkg jogl jogl /usr/lib64jogl/libjogl.so jogl /usr/lib64jogl/libjogl_awt.so jogl /usr/share/java/jogl-1.1.1.jar jogl /usr/share/java/jogl.jar
Granted, I have no idea what I am talking about, however: that /usr/lib64jogl/ seems suspect to me, shouldn't that be /usr/lib64/java?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #90 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-09 16:32:47 EST --- Absolutely right. It should be /usr/lib64/jogl (my fault). I'm uploading a fix right now.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #91 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-09 16:41:42 EST --- Here is an update: spec: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/jogl/1.1.1/4/jogl.spec srpm: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/jogl/1.1.1/4/jogl-1.1.1-4.fc12.src.rpm
rpmlint is a bit more happy: [lonely@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i686/jogl-* jogl.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microsystems -> Micro systems, Micro-systems, Ecosystems jogl.i686: W: no-documentation jogl-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
(In reply to comment #87)
About the debuginfo without sources, I am not familiar with fedora but I am pretty sure you should copy the native source (C) into a dedicated package into a directory where gdb can find them.
It is a mystery to me too, Sylvestre
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #92 from Levente Farkas lfarkas@lfarkas.org 2010-03-09 17:12:58 EST --- not required: cd .. rm -rf %{buildroot} (in install)
don't use -p in install param
if you use mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_javadir} why use a few lines later install -dm 755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} some place use install some place use cp... try to be consequent.
don't use "" line break so much. a 80 chars long lines is not too long, so most lines shouldn't have to break.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #93 from James Heather j.heather@surrey.ac.uk 2010-03-09 17:26:43 EST --- Is the no-documentation problematic? Obviously the javadoc is in a separate package, but maybe you are supposed to put in a README? Not sure.
I have run
rpmlint -a | grep no-doc
and it did seem that there were quite a lot of installed packages on my machine that have that warning, so you're in good company.
You'd think that an error would be a fatal problem, wouldn't you? Well,
rpmlint -a | grep " E: "
returns plenty of stuff.
But
rpmlint -a | grep "debuginfo-without-sources"
returns nothing (and I do have quite a number of debuginfo packages installed), so I suspect that one is a problem.
James
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #94 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-09 18:06:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #92)
rm -rf %{buildroot} (in install)
I put this because of a rpmlint error: jogl.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
don't use -p in install param
if you use mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_javadir} why use a few lines later install -dm 755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} some place use install some place use cp... try to be consequent.
I have some recycled code here.
don't use "" line break so much. a 80 chars long lines is not too long, so most lines shouldn't have to break.
Just for aesthetic reasons, or is there any consequences for rpm's generation?
(In reply to comment #93)
rpmlint -a | grep "debuginfo-without-sources"
returns nothing (and I do have quite a number of debuginfo packages installed), so I suspect that one is a problem.
Thank you so much, James, I guess that is time to some googleing and ask for help in the lists.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #95 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-09 18:17:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #93)
rpmlint -a | grep "debuginfo-without-sources"
returns nothing (and I do have quite a number of debuginfo packages installed), so I suspect that one is a problem.
Should it be the same case? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545039#c9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #96 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-09 18:23:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #91)
jogl.i686: W: no-documentation jogl-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
It seems that this error can be ignored https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563001
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #97 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-10 16:06:40 EST --- I guess is time to reopen this review (and for gluegen too). Should I create a new one?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |572512
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #98 from Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior henriquecsj@gmail.com 2010-03-11 07:41:46 EST ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 572515 ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
Bug 439630 depends on bug 572512, which changed state.
Bug 572512 Summary: Review Request: gluegen - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572512
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630
--- Comment #99 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-05-23 13:48:04 EDT ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 690282 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla