=== doko_ [n=doko@dslb-088-073-075-020.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #ubuntu-java === AfC [i=andrew@office.syd.operationaldynamics.com] has joined #ubuntu-java === vil [n=vladimir@ubuntu/member/vil] has joined #ubuntu-java === AfC [i=andrew@office.syd.operationaldynamics.com] has joined #ubuntu-java === vil [n=vladimir@ubuntu/member/vil] has joined #ubuntu-java === vil [n=vladimir@ubuntu/member/vil] has joined #ubuntu-java === dharrigan [n=dharriga@82-71-62-76.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk] has joined #ubuntu-java === sss [i=sss@gateway/tor/x-89d78b77986dda6a] has joined #ubuntu-java === marcin_ant [n=marcin@194.114.146.126] has joined #ubuntu-java [09:24] hi [09:24] is there anyone? [09:27] hello [09:27] man-di: hi [09:27] I got a question [09:27] I would like to prepare some packages for ubuntu with java software [09:27] but I really don't want to compile with gcj [09:28] is there any policy for compilation with 'modern' compiler - and sun jdk 1.6 ? [09:28] why? [09:28] gcj supports the modern compiler [09:28] problem with sun jdk ist still that its not free [09:29] so if you want to make something depend on it, it needs to go into multiverse [09:29] maybe some naming convention to differentiate packages compiled with sun-java6? [09:29] just the normal java naming convention [09:30] hmm but for example we got: ecj, ecj-gcj [09:30] whats the problem with them? [09:30] if I want to package ecj but compile it with sun's jdk then how should I name my package? [09:31] we have ecj already. what do you want to package it again? [09:31] names for packages are independent of the build depends [09:31] you got ecj-3.2 and not 3.3 (not in feisty at least) [09:31] we have ecj 3.3 in gutsy [09:32] if you want it in feisty, do a backport [09:32] or an SRU but I doubt this fits an SRU [09:32] ok but I want to use sun java not gcj - so what should I do then? [09:32] and I wonder what gain do you think this update would be [09:33] marcin_ant: chanage the build depends [09:33] but this cannot go into Ubuntu [09:33] as ecj is in main [09:33] yes this is why I ask for naming convention - I don't want to mess with ecj (compiled with gcj) [09:34] I just would like to prepare separate package - ecj-sun? ecj-javac? [09:34] you dont understand what the ecj-gcj package is [09:34] you can just use the ecj pakcage and execute ecj with SUN java [09:35] no need for an extra packacge [09:35] *-gcj are just packages with native jars [09:35] * is for all java runtimes [09:35] *-gcj is just an optimization when run with gcj [09:35] nothing more [09:36] you can run * witg gcj too, its just slower [09:39] so there is no difference between ecj-* compiled with gcj and sun's javac? [09:39] I mean between ecj.jar? [09:40] no, there is not [09:41] all other is a bug [09:42] ok that's good but to use or build it I need to use all this gcj infrastructure [09:43] no [09:44] so I need to install gcj packages etc.... and what if I just don't want to install any 'native' compiled packages? and have only sun-java6? [09:44] ecj.jar was split into libecj-java package for exactly this usecase [09:44] you dont need to install 'native' compiled packages [09:44] these are only Recommends [09:45] ehh but let's move from ecj to something more complicated [09:45] what about eclipse? [09:45] same thing [09:45] the *-gcj packages are optional [09:45] you dont need to install them when you ise SUN JDK [09:45] but to build eclipse I need to use gcj right? [09:45] right [09:45] man-di: ping on the ecj package [09:46] if you would build-depend on sun jdk we would need to move eclispe to multiverse [09:46] doko: pong [09:46] doko: I'm currently tryting to catch up on things [09:46] doko: my server was down, broken hard disk [09:47] you told me =) [09:47] and... hmm to use eclipse I need to have gcj-4.1-base [09:47] marcin_ant: that was a bug that was fixed afaik [09:47] marcin_ant: if not please file an issue [09:51] man-di: is there any difference in performance between eclipse compiled with gcj and compiled with sun's jdk? [09:52] marcin_ant: depends [09:53] if you run both with the same VM (e.g. SUN JDK): no [09:53] if you run both with gcj: yes, a big difference [09:54] man-di: yes I don't want to use gcj at all - but I could use gcj for compilation (but not sure if eclipse 3.3.0 would compile with gcj at all) [09:54] it should [09:55] but before you can work on eclipse 3.3 we need to get its dependencies into Ubuntu (and Debian) [09:55] I'm Eclipse maintainer [09:55] doko too === doko hides, too much other stuff ... [09:57] hehe [09:57] doko: the diff looks good [09:57] doko: I will do a pbuilder run with it which builds all java packages [09:57] doko: I can tell you the result tomorrow [09:57] man-di: no, the get-source target, and if the sources are ok ... [09:58] doko: looks complicated [09:58] but ecj is complicated [10:00] doko: I love "@echo Press enter for the password" [10:00] hehe [10:00] man-di: I think the rebuild of the java packages is not really needed, tromey used it for rebuilding the libjava .class files [10:00] this version? [10:00] yes [10:00] man-di: what dependencies? [10:00] or the version downloadable on www.eclipse.org/downloads [10:02] marcin_ant: like jetty [10:02] debian has a version of jetty, but that is too old and has some security issues [10:03] man-di: is this required for eclipse 3.3? [10:03] there are more dependencies what exist but miss the manifest stuff for eclipse [10:03] yes, for 3.3 [10:03] that is one of the reasons 3.3 is not packaged yet [10:03] hmm strange.. [10:04] but you mean - it's required for eclipse with gcj? [10:04] no, for eclipse in general [10:05] are you sure that it's absoultely required for eclipse 3.3? [10:05] yes [10:05] I compiled eclipse 3.3 with sun-java6 on feisty without any problem [10:06] and I could run this without issues too [10:07] normal eclipse source contains all its dependecies [10:07] to get it into the archive we remove them all to make sure we do clean builds [10:07] doko: I'm okay with the ecj package [10:15] ok, thanks [10:19] hmm I'm just trying to understand those overcomplicated gcj build scripts for ecj-3.3.0-2ubuntu1 [10:19] but there is another thing - AFAIK ecj is not licensed with CPL 1.0 [10:20] it's licensed with EPL [10:22] EPL 1.0 is the same as CPL 1.0 [10:22] but I have to agree that debian/changelog needs an adjustment [10:24] doko: can you fix this while you are at the package? [10:25] marcin_ant: you can simplify it if you want, but: you need to bootstrap without ecj, it has to run on every arch [10:25] man-di: is the license in the eclipse package correct? [10:25] doko: marcin_ant is right, debian/copyright says CPL and all *.java files say EPL [10:25] man-di: is the license in the eclipse package correct? [10:26] doko: marcin_ant is right, debian/copyright says CPL and all *.java files say EPL [10:28] doko: all of Eclipse was relicensed from CPL to EPL years ago [10:40] man-di: ok, checked myself, the eclipse copyright is the right one [10:44] sorry ;)