headers
Mikael Gueck | 1 Feb 2003 02:22

/usr/bin/ant and ant-optional-full

I use the ant-optional-full package instead of ant-optional, and
have recently had problems building packages with certain tasks,
such as <style_0  in them. This is because the script /usr/bin/ant
doesn't search for and use the /usr/share/java/ant-optional-full.jar
link. I haven't tried the trivial-looking patch below with
ant-optional, only with -full.

[mikael <at> gumidesk javalodm]$ rpm -qa | grep ant-
ant-1.5.1-7jpp
ant-optional-full-1.5.1-7jpp
ant-manual-1.5.1-7jpp

--- /tmp/oldant 2003-02-01 03:11:50.000000000 +0200
+++ /usr/bin/ant        2003-02-01 03:13:23.000000000 +0200
 <at>  <at>  -116,7 +116,8  <at>  <at> 
  #
  if $rpm_mode; then
    JAVALIBDIR=/usr/share/java
-  for i in ant ant-optional jaxp_parser_impl xml-commons-apis
+  for i in ant ant-optional ant-optional-full \
+               jaxp_parser_impl xml-commons-apis
    do
      if [ -z "$LOCALCLASSPATH" ] ; then
        LOCALCLASSPATH="$JAVALIBDIR/$i.jar"

--

-- 
:) MG - http://www.gueck.com/
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
David Walluck | 1 Feb 2003 02:40

Web Site


After the packages for a particular RPM are listed, would it be possible to 
have a Dependencies section immediately following that which would link 
*directly* to the RPMS for the dependency?

Also it would be nice to link to the about page, the section on setting up 
automatic downloads, from these pages, so people know right away that if a 
package has 10 dependencies, they need not grab all of these with a web 
browser if they don't want to. I was hoping the website developer was on this 
list, so I wouldn't have to struggle with doing it myself :)

--

-- 
Sincerely,

David Walluck
<david@...>
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
David Walluck | 1 Feb 2003 02:46

Re: /usr/bin/ant and ant-optional-full


On Friday January 31, 2003 08:22 pm, Mikael Gueck wrote:
> I use the ant-optional-full package instead of ant-optional, and
> have recently had problems building packages with certain tasks,

Why do we leave out some tasks in the regular ant-optional rpm in the first 
place?

>
> [mikael <at> gumidesk javalodm]$ rpm -qa | grep ant-
> ant-1.5.1-7jpp
> ant-optional-full-1.5.1-7jpp
> ant-manual-1.5.1-7jpp

This isn't the problem.

ant-optional.jar -> ant-optional-full-1.5.1.jar

So you see, it doesn't have to search for ant-optional-full, since that's 
linked to ant-optional. So the problem is that this link was never created, 
and now the question is, why? It may have to do with using rpm -U vs. rpm -i. 
Does anyone know?

Anyway to fix:

$ cd /usr/share/java
$ ln -sf  ant-optional-full-1.5.1.jar ant-optional.jar

--

-- 
Sincerely,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Ville Skyttä | 1 Feb 2003 10:32
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: /usr/bin/ant and ant-optional-full

On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 03:46, David Walluck wrote:

> On Friday January 31, 2003 08:22 pm, Mikael Gueck wrote:
> > I use the ant-optional-full package instead of ant-optional, and
> > have recently had problems building packages with certain tasks,
> 
> Why do we leave out some tasks in the regular ant-optional rpm in the first 
> place?

Maybe we don't have all the necessary stuff (some commercial, some not)
available for building them?

> > [mikael <at> gumidesk javalodm]$ rpm -qa | grep ant-
> > ant-1.5.1-7jpp
> > ant-optional-full-1.5.1-7jpp
> > ant-manual-1.5.1-7jpp
> 
> This isn't the problem.
> 
> ant-optional.jar -> ant-optional-full-1.5.1.jar
> 
> So you see, it doesn't have to search for ant-optional-full, since that's 
> linked to ant-optional. So the problem is that this link was never created, 
> and now the question is, why? It may have to do with using rpm -U vs. rpm -i. 
> Does anyone know?

Yes.  %post optional-full creates the symlinks ok, but %preun
optional-full *always* removes them, inlcuding on upgrade.  The script
execution order is always %pre, %post, %preun, %postun.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Ville Skyttä | 1 Feb 2003 12:23
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Web Site

On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 03:40, David Walluck wrote:

> After the packages for a particular RPM are listed, would it be possible to 
> have a Dependencies section immediately following that which would link 
> *directly* to the RPMS for the dependency?

The db backend does not contain any dependency information so that'll be
a big job.

> Also it would be nice to link to the about page, the section on setting up 
> automatic downloads, from these pages, so people know right away that if a 
> package has 10 dependencies, they need not grab all of these with a web 
> browser if they don't want to. I was hoping the website developer was on this 
> list, so I wouldn't have to struggle with doing it myself :)

I ported Matthias' stuff to MySQL as well as made it a bit more robust,
but I don't want to touch the code any more (yuk, PHP suks).  I don't
think the author has too big plans on that codebase since AFAICT he
hasn't applied my changes and enhancements to his own version at
freshrpms.net.

Additionally, I don't think it's feasible to even try to make it
understand the upcoming per-distro-version RPMs cleanly.

Yes, the website looks kind of nice, but we really want a mirrorable
site instead of a dynamic one; there's no real advantage of it being
dynamic at the moment.  I think we should probably switch back to
rpm2html or something else that can list the dependencies and generate
static pages suitable for mirroring.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Ville Skyttä | 1 Feb 2003 12:29
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: /usr/bin/ant and ant-optional-full

On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 11:32, Ville Skyttä wrote:

> Yes.  %post optional-full creates the symlinks ok, but %preun
> optional-full *always* removes them, inlcuding on upgrade.  The script
> execution order is always %pre, %post, %preun, %postun.
> 
> I sent a patch that fixes this as well as symlinks a jaxp_transform_impl
> into /usr/share/java/ant/ earlier but maybe that was lost in the BSF
> update/rename flurry.  I'll roll a new Ant today.

Okay, just uploaded a new ant.  Please note that when upgrading
optional-full, the symlinks will still be missing after it because the
buggy %preun script that will be run on upgrade is from the *previous*
package version.

It's fixed now, and shouldn't happen any more with future releases.

--

-- 
\/ille Skyttä
ville.skytta at iki.fi
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Brad Smith | 1 Feb 2003 19:35

Re: /usr/bin/ant and ant-optional-full

Excellent. I always run ant -diagnostics after any update to make sure
all is running correct and have found that I needed to do the manual
symlink after the last virtually every ant rpms from the JPackage team.

This will be a helpful fix.

Brad

On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 01:32, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> 
> I sent a patch that fixes this as well as symlinks a jaxp_transform_impl
> into /usr/share/java/ant/ earlier but maybe that was lost in the BSF
> update/rename flurry.  I'll roll a new Ant today.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up!
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Walluck | 1 Feb 2003 20:35

Re: Web Site


On Saturday February 01, 2003 06:23 am, Ville Skyttä wrote:

> Yes, the website looks kind of nice, but we really want a mirrorable
> site instead of a dynamic one; there's no real advantage of it being
> dynamic at the moment.  I think we should probably switch back to
> rpm2html or something else that can list the dependencies and generate
> static pages suitable for mirroring.

There's still the problem of a user coming to the site to get an RPM that has 
10 or so dependencies. The dependency output even in rpm2html lists every 
dependency, not just the packages in jpackage which it depends on (which is 
the only thing people are interested in). Maybe it's possible to hack 
rpm2html to support nicer dependency output, I don't know.

--

-- 
Sincerely,

David Walluck
<david@...>
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Ville Skyttä | 2 Feb 2003 16:03
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: [Jpackage-announce] [RPM] gnu.regexp-1.1.4-4jpp

On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 03:36, David Walluck wrote:

> Name        : gnu.regexp                   Relocations: (not relocateable)
> - remove vendor tag

Why?  Putting the vendor tag into our spec files is The Right Thing To
Do, and almost all of them have it.  See max-rpm:
<http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-tags.html>

The gnu.regexp specfile was (and is) missing the Distribution tag.

The policy didn't have anything related to these, I just updated it. 
See <http://www.jpackage.org/policy.php#tags>.

--

-- 
\/ille Skyttä
ville.skytta at iki.fi
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
David Walluck | 2 Feb 2003 18:01

Re: Re: [Jpackage-announce] [RPM] gnu.regexp-1.1.4-4jpp


On Sunday February 02, 2003 10:03 am, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 03:36, David Walluck wrote:
> > Name        : gnu.regexp                   Relocations: (not
> > relocateable) - remove vendor tag
>
> Why?  Putting the vendor tag into our spec files is The Right Thing To
> Do, and almost all of them have it.  See max-rpm:
> <http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-tags.html>
>
> The gnu.regexp specfile was (and is) missing the Distribution tag.
>
> The policy didn't have anything related to these, I just updated it.
> See <http://www.jpackage.org/policy.php#tags>.

I think rpmlint said that it was wrong because of capitalization ("JPackage 
project vs. JPackage Project", or maybe it always says it's wrong). Also, the 
Vendor tag is still there, but I didn't think it was supposed to be 
hardcoded. I remember we change the name of the tags, this would have been 
hard if we had to check every spec file instead of putting it in 
~/.rpmmacros. In any case, I believed it should not be hardcoded, just as the 
policy for Packager has always been. The Distribution should also be set. I 
don't know why it isn't.

--

-- 
Sincerely,

David Walluck
<david@...>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane