[gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[Dylan Carlson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Greetings,

This is not an RFC, per se, but I am posting this with the general purpose
of soliciting discussion.  This might be a controversial subject, so I
think it warrants some conversation before it reaches the level of an RFC.

I have talked with a couple of people the idea of dropping JRE support in
Gentoo.  The reasons this idea came about:

1.  Gentoo is a source-based distribution.  We have Java-based packages
that build from source for the same reason that have C packages that build
from source.  Yet, it's unthinkable to have a system without a C compiler.
Thus it should be almost as unthinkable to have a system without a Java
compiler.

2.  Few people actually use a JRE inside of Gentoo for the above reason (if
any) ... yet of course reliable statistics on this are not available.
Furthermore, some packages require a JDK to run, namely servlet engines,
development environments, and rare apps that depend on the JDK without
actually compiling/debugging anything.

3.  Jikes will compile most things, but not everything.  Furthermore, Jikes
lacks a javadoc tool, among other things.  So it's not suitable to have a
JRE + Jikes combination, though in theory that might be possible someday.


User impact to the above idea:

1.  Download & install size:   Using 1.4 as our example, JRE's are about a
22MB download.  JDKs are about 42MB.   It's also safe to assume that the
JDKs also occupy roughly twice the disk space, though I don't have
specifics on it for this email.

2.  Reduced complexity in java-config(1), simplifies the nature of Java
ebuilds for both Gentoo developers and users submitting ebuilds alike.

3.  Reduced QA burden.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Cheers,
Dylan Carlson

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F
Key fingerprint = 3AEA DE38 FE42 15A6 C0E2 730E 3D04 BCC1 708E 165F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+yaXKPQS8wXCOFl8RAg/IAJ9s7FL6mRrciaCMU3med2CGUysRZgCcDvlB
fj/MRBGYX0e8mjjs2fDisG4=
=hpnd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[Chris Davies]

Hi,

I for one do not wish to see JRE support dropped from gentoo, and have a number of reasons why.

Having installed gentoo over 56K modems a number of times, I would have found it immensely frustrating had I had to install a JDK just to get Java support in mozilla and it's derivatives. We are talking 5+ hours for a JDK, compared to only 2 for a JRE. Now I have broadband, it is easy to overlook those people who can't get fast connectivity, but I don't think they should be neglected merely for the sake of simplifying a supporting script. The majority, I suspect, only have any Java product on their machine to get the java plugin.

Secondly, there is simply no advantage to compiling java applications on the system in question. It is a complete waste of time. Java compiles into machine independant bytecode. The same Java code compiled by the same compiler on two different architectures should produce exactly the same result. So unless you plan to offer gcj as an alternative compilation tool, compiling from source is utter waste of the user's time. It is dogmatic in the extreme to suggest that because we compile programs that generate machine dependant object code on the system itself, all programs on the system should be compiled. Compilation is a means to an end, that end being object code that is more efficient than offered by binary distributions. In cases where the build process is long or difficult, often binaries are offered (openoffice-bin and phoenix-bin spring to mind), so saying this is a source distribution is false. I firmly beleive Java packages should be offered as binary until gcj is fit to compile them, and that one or other of the JREs should be the default Java environment. 

It is true that some packages do require a JDK, like Tomcat, but I can't see that as being a reason that all Java packages must require a JDK. It should be pointed out that Tomcat is distributed as a binary, so the JDK is only a runtime dependancy. Why inflict the JDK on users who neither want or need it?

Well, thats my rant of the day over with :)

Thanks,
C.Davies

* Dylan Carlson (absinthe@gentoo.org) wrote: 
> Greetings,
> 
> This is not an RFC, per se, but I am posting this with the general purpose
> of soliciting discussion.  This might be a controversial subject, so I
> think it warrants some conversation before it reaches the level of an RFC.
> 
> I have talked with a couple of people the idea of dropping JRE support in
> Gentoo.  The reasons this idea came about:
> 
> 1.  Gentoo is a source-based distribution.  We have Java-based packages
> that build from source for the same reason that have C packages that build
> from source.  Yet, it's unthinkable to have a system without a C compiler.
> Thus it should be almost as unthinkable to have a system without a Java
> compiler.
> 
> 2.  Few people actually use a JRE inside of Gentoo for the above reason (if
> any) ... yet of course reliable statistics on this are not available.
> Furthermore, some packages require a JDK to run, namely servlet engines,
> development environments, and rare apps that depend on the JDK without
> actually compiling/debugging anything.
> 
> 3.  Jikes will compile most things, but not everything.  Furthermore, Jikes
> lacks a javadoc tool, among other things.  So it's not suitable to have a
> JRE + Jikes combination, though in theory that might be possible someday.
> 
> 
> User impact to the above idea:
> 
> 1.  Download & install size:   Using 1.4 as our example, JRE's are about a
> 22MB download.  JDKs are about 42MB.   It's also safe to assume that the
> JDKs also occupy roughly twice the disk space, though I don't have
> specifics on it for this email.
> 
> 2.  Reduced complexity in java-config(1), simplifies the nature of Java
> ebuilds for both Gentoo developers and users submitting ebuilds alike.
> 
> 3.  Reduced QA burden.
> 
> I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dylan Carlson


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[Todd Berman]

Just as a side note, there is ABSOLUTELY reason to compile java packages
from source.

In many ebuilds that I write and commit to the tree, I use the jikes and
debug USE variables to customize the build. So there seem to be at least
5 different 'machine independent' bytecode possibilities. (At least last
time i looked jikes-generated code was not exactly the same as blackdown
generated code).

Now, this email isnt either in favor or against removing the JRE, just
giving some additional information.

--Todd

On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 12:32, Chris Davies wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I for one do not wish to see JRE support dropped from gentoo, and have a number of reasons why.
> 
> Having installed gentoo over 56K modems a number of times, I would have found it immensely frustrating had I had to install a JDK just to get Java support in mozilla and it's derivatives. We are talking 5+ hours for a JDK, compared to only 2 for a JRE. Now I have broadband, it is easy to overlook those people who can't get fast connectivity, but I don't think they should be neglected merely for the sake of simplifying a supporting script. The majority, I suspect, only have any Java product on their machine to get the java plugin.
> 
> Secondly, there is simply no advantage to compiling java applications on the system in question. It is a complete waste of time. Java compiles into machine independant bytecode. The same Java code compiled by the same compiler on two different architectures should produce exactly the same result. So unless you plan to offer gcj as an alternative compilation tool, compiling from source is utter waste of the user's time. It is dogmatic in the extreme to suggest that because we compile programs that generate machine dependant object code on the system itself, all programs on the system should be compiled. Compilation is a means to an end, that end being object code that is more efficient than offered by binary distributions. In cases where the build process is long or difficult, often binaries are offered (openoffice-bin and phoenix-bin spring to mind), so saying this is a source distribution is false. I firmly beleive Java packages should be offered as binary until gcj is fit to compile them, and that one or other of the JREs should be the default Java environment. 
> 
> It is true that some packages do require a JDK, like Tomcat, but I can't see that as being a reason that all Java packages must require a JDK. It should be pointed out that Tomcat is distributed as a binary, so the JDK is only a runtime dependancy. Why inflict the JDK on users who neither want or need it?
> 
> Well, thats my rant of the day over with :)
> 
> Thanks,
> C.Davies



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[Dylan Carlson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 20 May 2003 12:32 pm, Chris Davies wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Secondly, there is simply no advantage to compiling java applications on
> the system in question. It is a complete waste of time. Java compiles
> into machine independant bytecode. The same Java code compiled by the
> same compiler on two different architectures should produce exactly the
> same result. So unless you plan to offer gcj as an alternative
> compilation tool, compiling from source is utter waste of the user's
> time. It is dogmatic in the extreme to suggest that because we compile
> programs that generate machine dependant object code on the system
> itself, all programs on the system should be compiled. Compilation is a
> means to an end, that end being object code that is more efficient than
> offered by binary distributions. In cases where the build process is
> long or difficult, often binaries are offered (openoffice-bin and
> phoenix-bin spring to mind), so saying this is a source distribution is
> false. I firmly beleive Java packages should be offered as binary until
> gcj is fit to compile them, and that one or other of the JREs should be
> the default Java environment.

You are incorrect here. 

Yes, bytecode is bytecode, however, there are numerous reasons why 
compiling from source makes sense for some packages, not least of which is 
optional run-time dependencies that can be built in (or not) to the final 
JAR.

Also, classes produced by Jikes are often smaller than what's produced by 
Sun's javac.  Because of these reasons and others not listed here, 
building from source is not only desireable, it will most definitely 
remain a focus of how we do things.

GCJ/GIJ is planned to be integrated into java-config(1), but will not work 
with a lot of things in the near future until it improves.  

Your whole reasoning with GCJ, frankly, I find completely insane.

> It is true that some packages do require a JDK, like Tomcat, but I can't
> see that as being a reason that all Java packages must require a JDK. It
> should be pointed out that Tomcat is distributed as a binary, so the JDK
> is only a runtime dependancy. Why inflict the JDK on users who neither
> want or need it?

Tomcat is only a binary because it's not currently a source build.  That 
will change.   Throughout the Java tree I expect to take advantage of the 
'prebuilt' USE flag and make ebuilds binary-or-source where it makes sense 
to do so.

The whole prebuilt USE flag was born out of an RFC I submitted to -core 
long ago.  

>
> Well, thats my rant of the day over with :)
>

I need reasoned feedback, not rants.   This isn't even an RFC yet, so 
please chill out.

Cheers,
Dylan Carlson

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F
Key fingerprint = 3AEA DE38 FE42 15A6 C0E2 730E 3D04 BCC1 708E 165F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+yq8nPQS8wXCOFl8RAqLSAJwOa02AMPQnqDqtlkuRtXb1qReEywCfXzS5
Wx3KeRxny6cmUofMp58mDRo=
=9oqR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[William Kenworthy]

Actually, I would have to say that most users would have no direct
benefit from jdk, and even less have tomcat installed.  I am also sick
of downloading huge jdk packages over a modem!

I cannot see any advantage in compiling against a binary jdk than
accepting the equivalent binary JRE in most cases.

Perhaps a JDK/JRE use flag?

BillK

 
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 06:41, Dylan Carlson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tuesday 20 May 2003 12:32 pm, Chris Davies wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Secondly, there is simply no advantage to compiling java applications on
> > the system in question. It is a complete waste of time. Java compiles



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[Chris Davies]

* Dylan Carlson (absinthe@gentoo.org) wrote:
>  
> Yes, bytecode is bytecode, however, there are numerous reasons why 
> compiling from source makes sense for some packages, not least of which is 
> optional run-time dependencies that can be built in (or not) to the final 
> JAR.

OK, that may be a reason to build from source. Giving the user more choice is definitely a good idea.

> 
> Also, classes produced by Jikes are often smaller than what's produced by 
> Sun's javac.  Because of these reasons and others not listed here, 
> building from source is not only desireable, it will most definitely 
> remain a focus of how we do things.

So compile the binary portage uses with Jikes. There is no particular reason why binaries distributed must be those the developers distribute.  With a package like jedit that has no build time options, why waste machine time? It makes no sense to build it on every machine when the result is going to be much the same.

Perhaps I should also add that the JRE is helpful when installing in environments where disk space is at a premium, for example I recently built a Gentoo system on a 512MB flash card. Don't assume that everyone installing Gentoo is doing so on a machine with a real hard disk.

Thanks,
C.Davies

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[Riyad Kalla]

I agree with your reasoning. I support the cutting of the JRE (actually
I don't think I've downloaded the JRE since 1.2)

-Riyad

-----Original Message-----
From: Dylan Carlson [mailto:absinthe@gentoo.org] 
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 8:49 PM
To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Greetings,

This is not an RFC, per se, but I am posting this with the general
purpose of soliciting discussion.  This might be a controversial
subject, so I think it warrants some conversation before it reaches the
level of an RFC.

I have talked with a couple of people the idea of dropping JRE support
in Gentoo.  The reasons this idea came about:

1.  Gentoo is a source-based distribution.  We have Java-based packages
that build from source for the same reason that have C packages that
build from source.  Yet, it's unthinkable to have a system without a C
compiler. Thus it should be almost as unthinkable to have a system
without a Java compiler.

2.  Few people actually use a JRE inside of Gentoo for the above reason
(if
any) ... yet of course reliable statistics on this are not available.
Furthermore, some packages require a JDK to run, namely servlet engines,
development environments, and rare apps that depend on the JDK without
actually compiling/debugging anything.

3.  Jikes will compile most things, but not everything.  Furthermore,
Jikes lacks a javadoc tool, among other things.  So it's not suitable to
have a JRE + Jikes combination, though in theory that might be possible
someday.


User impact to the above idea:

1.  Download & install size:   Using 1.4 as our example, JRE's are about
a
22MB download.  JDKs are about 42MB.   It's also safe to assume that the
JDKs also occupy roughly twice the disk space, though I don't have
specifics on it for this email.

2.  Reduced complexity in java-config(1), simplifies the nature of Java
ebuilds for both Gentoo developers and users submitting ebuilds alike.

3.  Reduced QA burden.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Cheers,
Dylan Carlson

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F
Key fingerprint = 3AEA DE38 FE42 15A6 C0E2 730E 3D04 BCC1 708E 165F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+yaXKPQS8wXCOFl8RAg/IAJ9s7FL6mRrciaCMU3med2CGUysRZgCcDvlB
fj/MRBGYX0e8mjjs2fDisG4=
=hpnd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[Brad Laue]

Dylan Carlson wrote:
  > 1.  Gentoo is a source-based distribution.  We have Java-based packages
> that build from source for the same reason that have C packages that build
> from source.  Yet, it's unthinkable to have a system without a C compiler.
> Thus it should be almost as unthinkable to have a system without a Java
> compiler.
> 

I think it would be a mistake to carry the ideology of Gentoo as 
source-based to such an extreme. To do so would be sacrificing 
functionality in favor of principle, as many distributions are now fond 
of doing to their own detriment.

I'm in full agreement with Chris Davies' reply on this; it is necessary 
to keep JRE support in the distribution.

Adopting a purist policy toward source-only will eliminate several 
practical applications present in portage, and will cause people to 
rethink the practicality of Gentoo as a distribution for general use as 
opposed to a science project.

Brad

-- 
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it?

[George Shapovalov]

I think I should voice my "against" position here as well. 

1. I don't see any clear benefit in dropping the support for jre except for 
reduced maintaince argument. BTW, aren't jre and jdk ebuilds quite similar in 
terms of maintaince? If they are, then this might be a minor issue.

2. In terms of ideology: I have a feeling that being source based is really  
more technical detail of Gentoo Linux rather than ideological. 
The ideology behind Gentoo (in my inerpretation, but I saw this voiced by 
other people as well) states that the choice and possibility for user to 
adapt his system to specific task is the "defining feature". Thus the move to 
drop jre support would go directly against this position.

Just some thoughts anyway :).

George

On Monday 19 May 2003 20:49, Dylan Carlson wrote:
> I have talked with a couple of people the idea of dropping JRE support in
> Gentoo.  The reasons this idea came about:
>



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: JRE support - is it worth it?

[Stephan Feder]

Dylan Carlson wrote:
...
> 1.  Gentoo is a source-based distribution.  We have Java-based packages
> that build from source for the same reason that have C packages that build
> from source.  Yet, it's unthinkable to have a system without a C compiler.
> Thus it should be almost as unthinkable to have a system without a Java
> compiler.
...

Dylan,

you only need a compiler on a build host, not on a host that runs the
compiled software.

So, aside from the build host, you only need the jdk for packages like
tomcat, and the typical requirements of Java packages would be something
like

RDEPEND="virtual/jre-1.4"
DEPEND="virtual/jdk-1.4"

Mind: This does not touch the question of whether Java packages should
be compiled at all. For the sake of argument I was just assuming they
were.

Regards,
	Stephan

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list