[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Azureus

[Daenyth Blank]

2008/6/20 Ondřej Kučera <ondrej.kucera at centrum.cz>:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:12:41 -0500
> Simo Leone <simo at archlinux.org> 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?
>>
>> > 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 packages and the upstream distribution contains either outdated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 to outdated copies that are incompatible with our installed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
>
> I'll open this again... I think the main question now is - how many
> Archers are actually interested in Azureus? I mean if I'm the only one
> who uses it (or there's only a few of us), is there any reason for it
> to be in [extra] (where it is unmaintained anyway), shouldn't it be
> simple moved to unsupported (where someone would or wouldn't pick it
> up)? Is there any way to find out how popular a package in [extra] is
> (something like votes in AUR)?
>
> Anyway I created a new package in AUR, vuze (which is the new name of
> Azureus, I didn't even know that) -
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=17932. It simply downloads the
> latest binary version and puts it to /opt. It seems to work OK - at
> least it starts and is able to start downloading a torrent of
> ArchLinux's ISO. :-) The PKGBUILD is very basic for now, I just wanted
> to know if anyone is actually interested at all (if you are, please
> leave a comment and/or vote). It has the following limitations:
> (1) Right now, only x86_64 is supported, some juggling similar to what
> is done in PKGBUILD for Opera will be needed.
> (2) Depends on jre. Perhaps it would be more correct to depend on
> java-runtime but I don't have time to test it under java-gcj-compat.
> (3) Perhaps it should provide azureus and conflict with azureus. It
> doesn't have any conflicting files with the azureus package though. On
> the other hand, using both might mess with $HOME/.azureus...
>
> Any comments? I really don't think that there should be a package in
> core/extra/community unmaintained for such a long time.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Ondřej Kučera
>
>

Personally, due to the home clash, I would suggest that it conflict.
According to PKGBUILD man page, it should also use replace=, because
there's been a change in upstream naming.

I'm hardly official, but it's been my experience that noone (In
#archlinux) uses Azureus anyway, so I'd second a move out of extra.