On Mar 10 mai 2005 13:03, Gary Benson a écrit :

Mark Wielaard wrote:

...

The Apache group started a discussion around getting a full free j2se implementation. It is obvious that they need input on the state of the existing efforts. Could someone make a list of all the new packages build with gcj 4 and gcj-java-compat for Fedora Core 4 and some simple instructions for someone that wants to get up and running quickly to check that out?

Well, the main packages are Tomcat and Eclipse. I can't speak for the Eclipse guys, but to try out Tomcat you'd probably do something like:

1. Install a FC4tX box.
2. yum install tomcat5 tomcat5-webapps tomcat5-admin-webapps
3. service tomcat5 start
4. Look at http://localhost:8080/

If I may chirp in you can get a pretty good idea of the gcj advancement by comparing the java packages on jpackage.org and the ones in Fedora Devel.

Any package present in the first repo but not in the second one has probably not been tested with gcj yet.

If a package is present in jpackage.org but is slightly different in Fedora Extras that usualy means it had to include some gcj-specific changes.

(or the package itself has some build problem that was workarounded with a past vendot jvm but not any longer - this includes build dependency loops, api breaks, etc Sadly Apache/Jakarta packages are well represented in the semi-broken state too)

Packages on jpackage.org are supposed to be jvm-agnostic (there are bugs like anywhere else too). Once gcj has a complete drop-in jvm personality they are supposed to all work as-is.

Regards,

On Mar 10 mai 2005 14:11, Gary Benson a écrit :

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

...

Packages on jpackage.org are supposed to be jvm-agnostic (there are bugs like anywhere else too). Once gcj has a complete drop-in jvm personality they are supposed to all work as-is.

This is pretty much the case now.

Well we're not yet at the point where you can feed all the srpms to a build farm and everything builds with gcj.

Though I do agree most of the problems are not gcj-specific (but some are)

On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 14:19 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

his is pretty much the case now.

Well we're not yet at the point where you can feed all the srpms to a build farm and everything builds with gcj.

Though I do agree most of the problems are not gcj-specific (but some are)

Yes, I think we're in pretty decent shape. I've tried grabbing random SRPMS from jpackage and building/installing with java-gcj-compat. Most packages just work. Of those that didn't, most were because of dependencies on non-free packages I don't want to install. Very few (if any) were gcj/ecj problems. I'm sorry I don't have real data. This was a couple of months ago.

AG

On Mar 10 mai 2005 16:33, Gary Benson a écrit :

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

...

If a package is present in jpackage.org but is slightly different in Fedora Extras that usualy means it had to include some gcj-specific changes.

Actually, for s/Fedora Extras/Fedora Core/ this is not strictly true. Firstly, many of the packages have had their non-free dependencies slashed out. This doesn't mean they don't _work_ on gcj, it just means we're not using them for moral reasons.

Well when I wrote gcj-specific I meant gcj+gnu classpath specific problems;)

Obviously if the harmony guys want a full j2ee replacement they'll have to take care of all those non-free dependency holes too.

Regards,

Hi,

On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 14:07 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

If I may chirp in you can get a pretty good idea of the gcj advancement by comparing the java packages on jpackage.org and the ones in Fedora Devel.

I know the package list of jpackage.org. That is at http://jpackage.org/ But where is the Fedora Devel package list? http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/package-list/ only has fc2 which seems ancient. I found http://people.redhat.com/sopwith/new-packages.txt but I don't know how up to date it is.

Any package present in the first repo but not in the second one has probably not been tested with gcj yet.

If a package is present in jpackage.org but is slightly different in Fedora Extras that usualy means it had to include some gcj-specific changes.

(or the package itself has some build problem that was workarounded with a past vendot jvm but not any longer - this includes build dependency loops, api breaks, etc Sadly Apache/Jakarta packages are well represented in the semi-broken state too)

Do you happen to have lists of these cross-sections (on both lists, on one list, on the small changes list)?

Thanks,

Mark

On Mar 10 mai 2005 19:27, Mark Wielaard a écrit :

...

Any package present in the first repo but not in the second one has probably not been tested with gcj yet.

If a package is present in jpackage.org but is slightly different in Fedora Extras that usualy means it had to include some gcj-specific changes.

(or the package itself has some build problem that was workarounded with a past vendot jvm but not any longer - this includes build dependency loops, api breaks, etc Sadly Apache/Jakarta packages are well represented in the semi-broken state too)

Do you happen to have lists of these cross-sections (on both lists, on one list, on the small changes list)?

Sadly, no :(

However a lot of the problems have been discussed on the jpackage-discuss list. Moreover both jpackage & FC spec files should be available via cvs/cvsweb so diff-ing is possible.

Regards,

Hi Gary,

On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 12:03 +0100, Gary Benson wrote:

Well, the main packages are Tomcat and Eclipse. I can't speak for the Eclipse guys, but to try out Tomcat you'd probably do something like:

1. Install a FC4tX box.
2. yum install tomcat5 tomcat5-webapps tomcat5-admin-webapps
3. service tomcat5 start
4. Look at http://localhost:8080/

Assuming they know their way around Tomcat all they need to know to configure it is that CATALINA_HOME is /usr/share/tomcat5.

Is that the kind of thing they're after?

Yes, that is great. Do you have a pointer for more specific instructions for point 1? (Debian user speaking here [sorry], I don't actually know what FC4tX is or where I would download it.)

...

Their mailinglist is harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org

I'm going to be on holiday in five hours time, and I won't be back til May 23rd, so I don't want to start a thread there that I won't be able to respond to properly. Would you mind mailing them what I just wrote (assuming it's what you were after)?

It would probably be better if someone more familiar with Fedora could do the write up. If nobody else volunteers I can do a summary of this thread. But don't blame me if it will sound like "well, it isn't Debian, and the install is ackward, but..." :)

Cheers,

Mark