harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [general] JPackage - new opportunity for Harmony?
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:25:43 GMT

On 14 November 2007 at 19:57, "Alexey Petrenko"
<alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the Tomcat developers has pointed me to JPackage project[1].
> This project is distributing a rather big number of Java based
> projects for Linux in common way.  It also distributes JDKs. Now they
> have only Sun JDK in their list.
> I think it would be good for Harmony to try to participate in this
> project.
> I've wrote a letter to JPackage discussion list and has received few
> favorable responses.


> So we probably should create JPackage compatible rpm of Harmony and
> suggest it for inclusion.
> The good thing that we can demonstrate all the benefits of Harmony's
> modularity by creating a set of rpms and let the user choose which
> parts of Harmony he really needs.
> Not so good thing is that we need significant changes to Harmony's
> build system to be fully compatible with building Harmony from source
> RPM. Which is probably not a requirement for JPackage but a good form
> for Linux community.

I assume you mean the requirements not to include external
libraries/jars?  I've been thinking about this problem a little and am
keen to move things forward.

I added the hy.local.zlib option to remove one such issue but there
are many more in terms of jars/libs/fonts/etc that still need to be
addressed.  I don't really like the hy.local.zlib option and think that
really we need to (re)design the way we handle dependencies consistently
across classlib/jdktools/drlvm with support for local/ system and
remote/downloaded dependencies.  (The recent icu issue is a good example
of the problems that should be avoided by having an accurate, implicit,
consistent dependency implementation.)

> However we can start from simple binary rpm based on Harmony M3 for
> example.
> Thoughts? Objections?

I don't really use rpm-based distros but I have in the past and a
reasonable knowledge of spec files.  I'm happy to help.


View raw message