From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HlUJR-000450-Of for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 18:21:26 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l48IK7e0003533; Tue, 8 May 2007 18:20:07 GMT Received: from mailhub.zebra.lt (mailhub1.zebra.lt [212.59.31.77]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l48IGZab030396 for ; Tue, 8 May 2007 18:16:35 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.zebra.lt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090F6CC950 for ; Tue, 8 May 2007 21:16:16 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at takas.lt Received: from mailhub.zebra.lt ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ispmailfe204.internal.takas.lt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XQClpQsDNqoD for ; Tue, 8 May 2007 21:16:15 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (85-206-223-12.ip.zebra.lt [85.206.223.12]) by mailhub.zebra.lt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94215CC89A for ; Tue, 8 May 2007 21:16:15 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtuals and Java From: Vytautas Jakutis To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4640AEFE.1040501@gentoo.org> References: <8fj2F-5h5-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <4640AEFE.1040501@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 21:16:35 +0300 Message-Id: <1178648195.1447.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id l48IK7fv003533 X-Archives-Salt: 5f7b8adb-74bf-46a9-8b56-fe818e00ed6c X-Archives-Hash: c0abd0d4f29f3fbe7eb00af73455ebad On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 20:10 +0300, Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > Vytautas Jakutis kirjoitti: > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:00:09 +0200, Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > >=20 > >> We want to implement virtuals for Java at some point and for that we > >> need to know the package that provides the virtual because some virt= uals > >> can be provided by the JDK or normal packages and this affects the J= DK > >> selection at build time. One option is to call into Portage to find = this > >> out, but of course Paludis and Pkgcore people most likely don't like > >> this approach. One thing that comes to mind is to allow for virtuals= to > >> install files so we can install the provider information in a format > >> easy for us. We need the information in format ${PN}-${SLOT} because > >> that's the way we install in /usr/share. So do you think it's ok for > >> virtuals to install files (we can of course call the category > >> java-virtual/ too), should we call Portage code, or do you have an > >> another idea? > >=20 > > The virtual ebuilds that utilize JAR service provider discovery mecha= nism > > (in META-INF/services, from jdk1.4) should install its' API jars and = use > > virtual/ category. And those who don't - have to be patched to utiliz= e or > > have to use some special upwards compatibility layer (generate > > some special metadata file and use special eclass)..? > >=20 >=20 > Not really what we I am talking about. This is more ebuild related than > Java platform. For example javax.management does not use the Provider > style but it makes a good candidate for Java virtual ebuild. >=20 So split the JRE's and JDK's into VM's, Compilers and packages like the Ant into core and tasks, for instance: virtual/java-vm-1.6 dev-java/sun-vm-1.6.0.2 dev-java/ibm-vm-1.4.3 virtual/java-compiler-1.6 dev-java/sun-compiler-1.6.0.2 dev-java/ibm-compiler-1.4.3 virtual/java-javax-management-1.6 dev-java/sun-javax-management-1.6 dev-java/ibm-javax-management-1.4.3 Let the commercial JDK's be forgotten if their licenses disagree with this. --=20 Vytautas Jakutis vytautas@javy-labs.com --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list