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