Re: [arch-dev-public] [arch-general] Azureus
2008/4/11 Ondřej Kučera <ondrej.kucera@centrum.cz>:
Hello,
does anybody know what the deal is/plans are with the azureus package? It hasn't been updated for more than 7 months and it has been flagged out of date for a couple of months now too (as far as I remember). If the devs are not interested in maintaining it, shouldn't it be moved either to community or to unsupported where perhaps someone would pick it up and update the PKBGUILD?
Interesting point. I checked up on it and it IS orphaned. I'll CC the dev list to see if anyone is interested in it. If not, then perhaps it would be best to move it to community.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 04:59:07PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
2008/4/11 Ondřej Kučera <ondrej.kucera@centrum.cz>:
Interesting point. I checked up on it and it IS orphaned. I'll CC the dev list to see if anyone is interested in it. If not, then perhaps it would be best to move it to community.
This might be a good time to bring this up. I don't know. It used to be my package, and easy to deal with at that. But at some point someone went through and added nine patches removing support for things like osx and other junk, so I figured they probably wanted to maintain it and orphaned it. Guess not. Another change that was made was to make it compile from source... Now, Azureus is a java package, compiling it ourselves is of no benefit whatsoever since java uses a virtual machine. I'm willing to update it again, but is it ok with everyone if I don't compile it from source, or is there something I'm missing? -S
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 20:24 -0500, Simo Leone wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 04:59:07PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
2008/4/11 Ondřej Kučera <ondrej.kucera@centrum.cz>:
Interesting point. I checked up on it and it IS orphaned. I'll CC the dev list to see if anyone is interested in it. If not, then perhaps it would be best to move it to community.
This might be a good time to bring this up. I don't know. It used to be my package, and easy to deal with at that. But at some point someone went through and added nine patches removing support for things like osx and other junk, so I figured they probably wanted to maintain it and orphaned it. Guess not.
Another change that was made was to make it compile from source... Now, Azureus is a java package, compiling it ourselves is of no benefit whatsoever since java uses a virtual machine.
I'm willing to update it again, but is it ok with everyone if I don't compile it from source, or is there something I'm missing?
-S
I could update it again. The reason for patching it during froscon was that upstream azureus doesn't work with GNU java. Another thing was that the jarfile contains a lot of Windows and Mac OS X related things, the update manager doesn't work happily together with pacman packages and the upstream distribution contains either outdated copies of libraries where we have packages for, or just references to outdated copies that are incompatible with our installed versions. I had a look at the source, I can reduce some patches, as most are not needed anymore. Back then, I wrote two patches to remove some com.sun.* usage, they don't apply anymore and I have to check if they're still needed and if so, rewrite them. Another thing I stumbled on were the dependencies:
=dev-java/bcprov-1.35:0 =dev-java/commons-cli-1.0:1 =dev-java/log4j-1.2.8:0 =dev-java/swt-3.4_pre6-r1:3.4
That's what gentoo lists as dependencies (there's no clear reference of dependencies in the upstream source at all... just compile errors with weird missing references when you don't have these installed). -bcprov is packaged -commons-cli isn't -neither is log4j -swt is at 3.3.x Azureus 3.0.5.0 needs swt 3.4 development version (3.4M6 is current). If we don't want to update swt to the development version, we're tied to the much older 3.0.4.2 release, which needs some additional patches to compile from source.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 01:48:58PM +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
I could update it again. The reason for patching it during froscon was that upstream azureus doesn't work with GNU java.
Why do we care? What's wrong with depending on Sun's java package?
Another thing was that the jarfile contains a lot of Windows and Mac OS X related things, the update manager doesn't work happily together with pacman packages and the upstream distribution contains either outdated copies of libraries where we have packages for, or just references to outdated copies that are incompatible with our installed versions.
Now some of that can be a problem.
I had a look at the source, I can reduce some patches, as most are not needed anymore. Back then, I wrote two patches to remove some com.sun.* usage, they don't apply anymore and I have to check if they're still needed and if so, rewrite them.
See first response.
Another thing I stumbled on were the dependencies:
=dev-java/bcprov-1.35:0 =dev-java/commons-cli-1.0:1 =dev-java/log4j-1.2.8:0 =dev-java/swt-3.4_pre6-r1:3.4
That's what gentoo lists as dependencies (there's no clear reference of dependencies in the upstream source at all... just compile errors with weird missing references when you don't have these installed).
-bcprov is packaged -commons-cli isn't -neither is log4j -swt is at 3.3.x
Azureus 3.0.5.0 needs swt 3.4 development version (3.4M6 is current). If we don't want to update swt to the development version, we're tied to the much older 3.0.4.2 release, which needs some additional patches to compile from source.
Augh. Maybe we should go back to using the ones included with the jarfile, since I think the java policy we've got is basically... "split it if you can, don't bother if it's a hassle". This is starting to sound like a hassle to me. -S
On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 02:12 -0500, Simo Leone wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 01:48:58PM +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
I could update it again. The reason for patching it during froscon was that upstream azureus doesn't work with GNU java.
Why do we care? What's wrong with depending on Sun's java package?
Because sun's java is non-free and it's not that much work to make it working with GNU java. Azureus makes use of some com.sun.* classes that aren't marked for public use by sun. If Sun decides to change their com.sun.* class structure in the next java, azureus won't work with that either.
Another thing was that the jarfile contains a lot of Windows and Mac OS X related things, the update manager doesn't work happily together with pacman packages and the upstream distribution contains either outdated copies of libraries where we have packages for, or just references to outdated copies that are incompatible with our installed versions.
Now some of that can be a problem.
I had a look at the source, I can reduce some patches, as most are not needed anymore. Back then, I wrote two patches to remove some com.sun.* usage, they don't apply anymore and I have to check if they're still needed and if so, rewrite them.
See first response.
The patches I used on the old azureus are quite simple. They replace every call to some function that only exists in sun's java with a generic call that works on every java platform. They're not rocket science.
Another thing I stumbled on were the dependencies:
=dev-java/bcprov-1.35:0 =dev-java/commons-cli-1.0:1 =dev-java/log4j-1.2.8:0 =dev-java/swt-3.4_pre6-r1:3.4
That's what gentoo lists as dependencies (there's no clear reference of dependencies in the upstream source at all... just compile errors with weird missing references when you don't have these installed).
-bcprov is packaged -commons-cli isn't -neither is log4j -swt is at 3.3.x
Azureus 3.0.5.0 needs swt 3.4 development version (3.4M6 is current). If we don't want to update swt to the development version, we're tied to the much older 3.0.4.2 release, which needs some additional patches to compile from source.
Augh. Maybe we should go back to using the ones included with the jarfile, since I think the java policy we've got is basically... "split it if you can, don't bother if it's a hassle". This is starting to sound like a hassle to me.
Note that swt includes native bindings to gecko, gtk, etc. In our case, swt needs to have the location of libgtkmozembed.so hardcoded into the binary. The binary shipped with azureus doesn't do that specifically for our distribution. If swt would be all about a stupid jar file, we could just include it in the azureus package, but as there's native libraries involved, I don't think it's a good idea to have parallel installations of swt.
participants (3)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Jan de Groot
-
Simo Leone