Re: DISTFILES: java-sun: ERRORS: jdk-6u34-linux-i586.bin jdk-6u34-linux-x64.bin
On 20.08.2012 20:31, Jakub Bogusz wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:12:01PM +0200, qboosh wrote: FATAL: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/6u34-b04/jdk-6u34-linux-i586.bin md5 mismatch, needed 60f304b5ecae14dab5ab0b0144b9c012, got 81ee08846975d4b8d46acf3b6eddf103 FATAL: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/6u34-b04/jdk-6u34-linux-x64.bin md5 mismatch, needed 96278470b5c981dfd3b9f3308e5057f9, got 81ee08846975d4b8d46acf3b6eddf103 Could somebody with better uplink send these tarballs via df? you could log in to carme and do such bandwidth heavy stuff from there :) just ask arekm for access -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: DISTFILES: java-sun: ERRORS: jdk-6u34-linux-i586.bin jdk-6u34-linux-x64.bin
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:20:27PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: On 20.08.2012 20:31, Jakub Bogusz wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:12:01PM +0200, qboosh wrote: FATAL: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/6u34-b04/jdk-6u34-linux-i586.bin md5 mismatch, needed 60f304b5ecae14dab5ab0b0144b9c012, got 81ee08846975d4b8d46acf3b6eddf103 FATAL: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/6u34-b04/jdk-6u34-linux-x64.bin md5 mismatch, needed 96278470b5c981dfd3b9f3308e5057f9, got 81ee08846975d4b8d46acf3b6eddf103 Could somebody with better uplink send these tarballs via df? you could log in to carme and do such bandwidth heavy stuff from there :) just ask arekm for access I have access to carme, but oracle.com download service requires fully JS-capable browser (elinks doesn't suffice). -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: packages: java-sun/java-sun.spec - up to 1.6.0.33, sources uploaded via dis...
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:38:25PM +0200, Paweł Gołaszewski wrote: Proposal: leave java-sun as 1.6.x line and make brand new package as oracle-java (or java-oracle). I don't like this – this would suggest one comes from Sun, the other from Oracle, while both are from Oracle now and both were developed mainly by Sun. Rationale: there is a lot of places where java 1.6 is still required. And many where 1.7 has to be used... These must live together, at least on ftp. Yes, that is a reason to keep 1.6 and 1.7 in different packages. As it is often called Java 6 an Java 7, then maybe we should package it as 'oracle-java6' and 'oracle-java7'? BTW. we should probably package IcedTea 7 too. Greets, Jacek ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: packages: java-sun/java-sun.spec - up to 1.6.0.33, sources uploaded via dis...
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, glen wrote: Author: glen Date: Mon Jul 2 14:39:18 2012 GMT Module: packages Tag: HEAD Log message: - up to 1.6.0.33, sources uploaded via distfiles; - demos and samples available separately with bsd license, not packaging here as: a) should update to 1.7, b) spec should be named java-oracle (or oracle-java?) Proposal: leave java-sun as 1.6.x line and make brand new package as oracle-java (or java-oracle). Rationale: there is a lot of places where java 1.6 is still required. And many where 1.7 has to be used... These must live together, at least on ftp. -- pozdr. Paweł Gołaszewski jid:bluesatjabberdotgdadotpl -- If you think of MS-DOS as mono, and Windows as stereo, then Linux is Dolby Pro-Logic Surround Sound with Bass Boost and all the music is free.___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: java-sun dep loops
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:36:08AM +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
hmm. what to do here?
libmawt.so()(64bit) is provided by both packages,
so they don't actually depend on each other in loop
proves that i can uninstall java-sun-jre-X11 without java-sun-jre being
pulled down too.
moving headless to x11 package isn't proper either, as it doesn't link with
x11 libs
dropping provides likely not good either, as programs may link with it
(i have no samples to provide) and such deep library path makes it more
suspicious anybody able to link with it at all
is there anything to change in rpm side?
like if self package provides dependency don't go looking it elsewhere?
error: LOOP:
error: removing java-sun-jre-X11-1.6.0.11-1.x86_64 Requires: java-sun-jre =
1.6.0.11-1 from tsort relations.
error: java-sun-jre-X11-1.6.0.11-1.x86_64 Requires: java-sun-jre =
1.6.0.11-1
error: removing java-sun-jre-1.6.0.11-1.x86_64 Requires(auto):
libmawt.so()(64bit) from tsort relations.
error: java-sun-jre-1.6.0.11-1.x86_64 Requires(auto):
libmawt.so()(64bit)
error: LOOP:
error: removing java-sun-jre-X11-1.6.0.10-5.x86_64 Requires(auto):
libmawt.so()(64bit) from tsort relations.
error: java-sun-jre-X11-1.6.0.10-5.x86_64 Requires(auto):
libmawt.so()(64bit)
error: removing java-sun-jre-1.6.0.10-5.x86_64 Requires: java-sun-jre =
1.6.0.10-5 from tsort relations.
error: java-sun-jre-1.6.0.10-5.x86_64 Requires: java-sun-jre =
1.6.0.10-5
Preparing...###
[100%]
Repackaging...
Removing libmawt.so* from java-sun-jre requires list should to the
trick, and it won't brake anything as -jre provides the library anyways.
But I think the proper way to solve this would be to teach rpm/poldek to
remove all the Requires which are provided by the same package before
starting sort procedure. Alternatively, do it at the sort time - start
looking for the provided dependancy in the package that requires it.
Or would it brake something ?
--
Sparky{PI] -- Przemyslaw _ ___ _ _ ... LANG...Pl..Ca..Es..En
/) ___ ___ _ _ || Iskra | | _ \| | | : WWWppcrcd.pld-linux.org
\\| -_)'___| ||^'||//\\//| _/| | | : JID..sparkyatjabberes.org
(/|| (_-_|_|| ||\\ || |_ |_| |_| _| : Mailsparkyatpld-linux.org
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gcc-java vs java-sun-tools
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:49:43PM +0100, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: There is a problem with gcc-java vs java-sun-tools. These packages are conflicting on each other but tons of java specs require one or another. This means that manual uninstalling/installing on builders is required. I guess that the only one conflicting file is /usr/bin/jar - I'm thinking about adding gcc-java-tools package with jar binary only but... it seems that such subpackage was already there and was removed: Revision 1.298 2005/05/11 21:20:15 pluto - gcc-java-tools mreged into gcc-java. this package isn't common for every java implementation now. It was removed when jar in gcc had been renamed to fastjar and there were no conflicting files between gcc-java and java-sun. So there is a reason to separate jar again. The other solution would be putting Obsoletes without Conflicts in each package so there would be no problems on builders (installation deps based would work) ... IMO gcc-java shouldn't obsolete java-sun. java-gcj-compat (with java/javac wrappers) can do it. -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
gcc-java vs java-sun-tools
There is a problem with gcc-java vs java-sun-tools. These packages are conflicting on each other but tons of java specs require one or another. This means that manual uninstalling/installing on builders is required. I guess that the only one conflicting file is /usr/bin/jar - I'm thinking about adding gcc-java-tools package with jar binary only but... it seems that such subpackage was already there and was removed: Revision 1.298 2005/05/11 21:20:15 pluto - gcc-java-tools mreged into gcc-java. this package isn't common for every java implementation now. The other solution would be putting Obsoletes without Conflicts in each package so there would be no problems on builders (installation deps based would work) ... Any ideas how other distros deal with this problem? -- Arkadiusz MiśkiewiczPLD/Linux Team arekm / maven.plhttp://ftp.pld-linux.org/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gcc-java vs java-sun-tools
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 17:39, Szymon Siwek wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:49:43PM +0100, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: There is a problem with gcc-java vs java-sun-tools. These packages are conflicting on each other but tons of java specs require one or another. This means that manual uninstalling/installing on builders is required. /usr/bin/jar is symlink to jar-binary. The problem is that fresh rpm detects conflict about symlinks. Problem? It looks like a ,,fix''. The other solution would be putting Obsoletes without Conflicts in each package so there would be no problems on builders (installation deps based would work) ... It would be evil gentoo has script as javac, javadoc etc that runs proper binaries depending on user setting or global settings. -- Arkadiusz MiśkiewiczPLD/Linux Team arekm / maven.plhttp://ftp.pld-linux.org/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gcc-java vs java-sun-tools
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 15:49, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: There is a problem with gcc-java vs java-sun-tools. there was a thread about it on devel-pl: http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-pl/2006-July/135330.html ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something No właśnie... czekaliśmy na to od lat... Jest szansa, że uda się wrzucić Javę do Ac. :-) Ktoś już się za to zabiera, czy ja mam spróbować? Pozdrowienia, Jacek ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 09:59, Jacek Konieczny wrote: Anybody want to do that, or should I? You won the lottery! so You can do it ;) -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something Great. Maybe we could rebuild openoffice 1.x with java support, prepare eclipse and push those to Ac. -- http://www.mysza.eu.org/ | Everybody needs someone sure, someone true, PLD Linux developer| Everybody needs some solid rock, I know I do. ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Adam Gołębiowski wrote: On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something Great. Maybe we could rebuild openoffice 1.x with java support, prepare eclipse and push those to Ac. openoffice 1.x? You must be joking. OOO 2 is the only version acceptable for AC. Janek -- Jan Rękorajski| ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD! bagginsatmimuw.edu.pl | OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY? BOFH, MANIAC | -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:51:23PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: Maybe we could rebuild openoffice 1.x with java support, prepare eclipse and push those to Ac. openoffice 1.x? You must be joking. OOO 2 is the only version acceptable for AC. So, where OO1.* is going ? to supported or something ? Hm, OO2 will be build with java ? m.a. -- Z punktu widzenia Rewolucji Światowej ludzie zasadniczo dzielą się na dwie kategorie: na tych, którym trzeba natychmiast poderżnąć gardło i na tych, którym narazie nie trzeba. ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:05:34PM +0200, Adam Gołębiowski wrote: On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:51:23PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something Great. Maybe we could rebuild openoffice 1.x with java support, prepare eclipse and push those to Ac. openoffice 1.x? You must be joking. OOO 2 is the only version acceptable for AC. I tried to build ot amd64, but it fails (g++ falls in an endless loop), and from what I googled, it seems like it is a bug in gcc 3.3.x. And I haven't tried other archs. Since we won't switch to gcc 3.4.x, we'll have to use ooo 1.1.x Which isn't available for x86_64 too, so it doesn't matter. -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.cs.net.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
Elan Ruusamäe wrote: On Wednesday 17 May 2006 13:51, Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Wed, 17 May 2006, Adam Gołębiowski wrote: On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_somethi ng Great. Maybe we could rebuild openoffice 1.x with java support, prepare eclipse and push those to Ac. openoffice 1.x? You must be joking. OOO 2 is the only version acceptable for AC. ooo2 doesn't build with gcc 3.3.6 for amd64 No oo1.1 for amd64... so doesn't matter ;-) -- Andrzej Zawadzki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Wed, 17 May 2006, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: On Wednesday 17 May 2006 13:51, Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Wed, 17 May 2006, Adam Gołębiowski wrote: On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_somethi ng Great. Maybe we could rebuild openoffice 1.x with java support, prepare eclipse and push those to Ac. openoffice 1.x? You must be joking. OOO 2 is the only version acceptable for AC. ooo2 doesn't build with gcc 3.3.6 for amd64 Don't you tempt me ; [1] [1] to upgrade gcc to 3.4.x in AC... And rebuild _everything_ using C++ ? Thank you. Maybe next year... -- === Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone (48)(58) 347 14 61 Faculty of Applied Phys. Math., Gdansk University of Technology ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:06:19PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: Don't you tempt me ; [1] [1] to upgrade gcc to 3.4.x in AC... That would be just great. Do something currently, when AC is freezed, what hasn't been done for 2 or 3 years just because we were going to freeze AC in the next month and it would delay release. wolf -- Bartek . - No gdzie ten palec, możesz se między nogi wsadzić. Taudul : .: w o l f @ p l d - l i n u x . o r g.:. http://wolf.valkyrie.one.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: Java SUN
Elan Ruusamäe wrote: On Wednesday 17 May 2006 14:14, Andrzej Zawadzki wrote: ooo2 doesn't build with gcc 3.3.6 for amd64 No oo1.1 for amd64... so doesn't matter ;-) ooo1.1 doesn't support 64bit arches ;) Like ooo2 (official) :-P -- Andrzej Zawadzki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Java SUN
http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something -- Jan Rękorajski| ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD! bagginsatmimuw.edu.pl | OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY? BOFH, MANIAC | -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
upgrade java-blackdown to java-sun
# rpm -Uvh --repackage mozilla-firefox-plugin-java-sun-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm java-sun-mozilla-plugin-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm mozilla-plugin-java-sun-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm java-sun-jre-X11-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm java-sun-jre-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm java-sun-tools-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm error: Failed dependencies: java-blackdown-jre is needed by java-sun-jre-X11-1.5.0.06-1.athlon java-blackdown-jre is needed by java-sun-jre-1.5.0.06-1.athlon Looks weird. This happens when package is build with java-blackdown-jre installed. -- GoTaR priv0.onet.pl-gotarhttp://vfmg.sourceforge.net/ http://tccs.sourceforge.net/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
