[gentoo-user] java 1.4 & eclipse

[gentoo-user] java 1.4 & eclipse

[Fernando Meira]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

Hi all,

after upgrading (long time ago) to java 1.5, I still couldn't get rid of
version 1.4.
Now, when trying to run an update world, I noticed that version 1.4 of java
(sun-jdk) falls inside eclipse dependencies tree. (don't know if the "tree"
aspect is possible to see below..)

[ebuild  NS   ] dev-util/eclipse-sdk-3.2  USE="no-seamonkey opengl -cairo
-gnome" 80,120 kB
[ebuild     U ]  dev-java/ant-tasks-1.6.5-r2 [1.6.2-r9] 6,136 kB
[ebuild    FU ]  dev-java/sun-jdk-1.4.2.12 [1.4.2.10-r2]

However, equery does not report the same:
# equery g =eclipse-sdk-3.1.2-r2 | grep sun
 `-- dev-java/sun-jdk-1.5.0.05 (virtual/jre-1.4.2)
    `-- dev-java/sun-jaf-bin-1.0.2.2 [ javamail ]

Any idea on how can I use only version 1.5 and remove once per all version
1.4?

Thanks in advance.
Fernando

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 975 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] java 1.4 & eclipse

[Richard Fish]

On 7/9/06, Fernando Meira <fmeira@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any idea on how can I use only version 1.5 and remove once per all version
> 1.4?

According to the instructions.html in the source zip
"eclipse-sourceBuild-srcIncluded-3.2.zip", you must have *both* a 1.4
and 1.5 jdk installed to build eclipse.  So apparently it is not
possible to build or use eclipse 3.2 with only a 1.5 jdk.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: java 1.4 & eclipse

[James]

Richard Fish <bigfish <at> asmallpond.org> writes:



> According to the instructions.html in the source zip
> "eclipse-sourceBuild-srcIncluded-3.2.zip", you must have *both* a 1.4
> and 1.5 jdk installed to build eclipse.  So apparently it is not
> possible to build or use eclipse 3.2 with only a 1.5 jdk.


Ah, that brings up a follow up question. If many of the ebuild packages
have built in documentation, then is there a tool/package/web_interface
that allow the document perusal without individual(admin) interaction?
For example, man pages are auto loaded and ready with 'man <subject>' so I'd be
interested in any similiar doc system for xml, html, doc* ....

It seems like quite often I have to go on a search expedition for docs....

Is there a gentoo standard or a wiki related to this subject?


curious,
James


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: java 1.4 & eclipse

[Richard Fish]

On 7/10/06, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Ah, that brings up a follow up question. If many of the ebuild packages
> have built in documentation, then is there a tool/package/web_interface
> that allow the document perusal without individual(admin) interaction?

Well the general rule is that package documentation files other than
man pages and info docs get installed under
/usr/share/doc/<pkg>-<version>.  This would include html, pdfs, and
text files.  For example, bind-tools, ntp, python-docs, etc all
install their user manuals under this directory.

The bad news is that this doesn't include everything.  Build
instructions or other items not normally installed as part of the
package will not be found here.  In some cases it is necessary to look
for extra documentation files in the source archives, the web site, or
even the CVS repository of the upstream project that provides the
package.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] d

[Roy Wright]

James wrote:
> Ah, that brings up a follow up question. If many of the ebuild packages
> have built in documentation, then is there a tool/package/web_interface
> that allow the document perusal without individual(admin) interaction?
> For example, man pages are auto loaded and ready with 'man <subject>' so I'd be
> interested in any similiar doc system for xml, html, doc* ....
>
> It seems like quite often I have to go on a search expedition for docs....
>
> Is there a gentoo standard or a wiki related to this subject?
>   
This is an interesting question.  To my knowledge we have man pages, 
info pages, application
and upstream documentation, but no unified access tool.  The closest 
would be
beagle (I haven't looked a beagle since 0.0.10).

It should be possible to index man pages, info pages, and the contents 
of installed
applications.  Maybe even throw in ebuild elog messages and google search...

Once indexed, then pretty much any style of front-end could be added.

Need to think about this.

Have fun,
Roy

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] unified document viewing

[Roy Wright]

Roy Wright wrote:
> James wrote:
>> Ah, that brings up a follow up question. If many of the ebuild packages
>> have built in documentation, then is there a tool/package/web_interface
>> that allow the document perusal without individual(admin) interaction?
>> For example, man pages are auto loaded and ready with 'man <subject>' 
>> so I'd be
>> interested in any similiar doc system for xml, html, doc* ....
>>
>> It seems like quite often I have to go on a search expedition for 
>> docs....
>>
>> Is there a gentoo standard or a wiki related to this subject?
>>   
> This is an interesting question.  To my knowledge we have man pages, 
> info pages, application
> and upstream documentation, but no unified access tool.  The closest 
> would be
> beagle (I haven't looked a beagle since 0.0.10).
>
> It should be possible to index man pages, info pages, and the contents 
> of installed
> applications.  Maybe even throw in ebuild elog messages and google 
> search...
>
> Once indexed, then pretty much any style of front-end could be added.
>
> Need to think about this.
>
> Have fun,
> Roy
>
Sorry, resending with a subject.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: d

[Francesco Talamona]

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 08:29, Roy Wright wrote:
> James wrote:
> > Ah, that brings up a follow up question. If many of the ebuild
> > packages have built in documentation, then is there a
> > tool/package/web_interface that allow the document perusal without
> > individual(admin) interaction? For example, man pages are auto
> > loaded and ready with 'man <subject>' so I'd be interested in any
> > similiar doc system for xml, html, doc* ....
> >
> > It seems like quite often I have to go on a search expedition for
> > docs....
> >
> > Is there a gentoo standard or a wiki related to this subject?
>
> This is an interesting question.  To my knowledge we have man pages,
> info pages, application
> and upstream documentation, but no unified access tool.  The closest
> would be
> beagle (I haven't looked a beagle since 0.0.10).
Using 0.2.7, it's quite good.

I'm also testing kat (an indexing framework for KDE) 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kat, but still unsure if it's a viable 
alternative to beagle.

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92113
comments welcome :-)

ciao
	Francesco

-- 
Linux Version 2.6.17-gentoo-r2, Compiled #1 PREEMPT Sat Jul 8 07:47:35 
CEST 2006
One 2.2GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processor, 2GB RAM, 4410.67 Bogomips Total
aemaeth
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: d

[James]

Francesco Talamona <ti.liame <at> email.it> writes:


> > > It seems like quite often I have to go on a search expedition for
> > > docs....

> > beagle (I haven't looked a beagle since 0.0.10).
> Using 0.2.7, it's quite good.

Yes this is the sort of tool I've been wanting. If one
considers the collective time that we individually sink
into finding current documentation, across the gentoo
user community, it's a huge problem (waisted time) opportunity.

> I'm also testing kat (an indexing framework for KDE) 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/kat, but still unsure if it's a viable 
> alternative to beagle.

hmmm, did not see the ebuild for this?

> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92113


ah yes, my favorite line is: "
------- Comment #3 From Carsten Lohrke 2005-06-13 09:41 PST [reply] -------

Jan, see the relationship developers/packages, grep the tree for unmaintened
packages and you see the problem. Before someone comes and says "it's just about
putting this ebuild in cvs" - it's not. I did not add a single new package
(despite new dependencies) for months and I don't intend to do so in the future.
Get active¹² yourself."

Maybe a convient mechanism for non-sanctioned packages is what's needed
portage overlay is a pain and once you bet many packages, beocmes
a microcosm in disfuctionality. It's just like the docs delima where
individually  we waste a huge amount of time manually duplicating
what should be automated.? I.E. Since gentoo is a source-code system,
we should have more packages than debian, not less.....(ymmv).


You know, I should keep my mouth shut, but, what the hell.
I'm the only person to have gottenn 86'd from this gentoo
user list..(hi Neil)....(it's difficult to insult my integrity,
cause I do not believe any human has integrity....).

I suggested a while back that the 'gentoo genius' provide
templates and concrete steps to promote consumers of gentoo
into developers. It's an elitist club, dominated by the
latest fads of Object Oriented Confusion.... Here he
insults one's requests for action, yet, the path to being
a 'developer' is quite merky and fickle from the musings
I have read.

I have even been so bold as to suggest that Gentoo allow
'donations' with specific requests for software and issue
resolution. Money is not evil, it's a tool. The intentions
of mens hearts are suspect, in my experiences.
I've even solicited for persons with skills to
perform 'package assimilation' for compensation and had
no takers. This would help finance the developers
(we all have bills and desires) and help focus Gentoo so it 
can leave the R&D lab and become the distro it is destine to be,
both commercially and socially.

My offers fell on the deaf(dumb) ears.....

Go figure.....I'll just shut up now, cause, like an old-geezer,
I too enjoy poking at a 'young and excitable tiger',
now and again....

thanks for the insight on beagle and kat.....

cheers!


James






-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: d

[Francesco Talamona]

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 22:28, James wrote:
> Francesco Talamona <ti.liame <at> email.it> writes:
> > > > It seems like quite often I have to go on a search expedition
> > > > for docs....
> > >
> > > beagle (I haven't looked a beagle since 0.0.10).
> >
> > Using 0.2.7, it's quite good.
>
> Yes this is the sort of tool I've been wanting. If one
> considers the collective time that we individually sink
> into finding current documentation, across the gentoo
> user community, it's a huge problem (waisted time) opportunity.
>
> > I'm also testing kat (an indexing framework for KDE)
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/kat, but still unsure if it's a
> > viable alternative to beagle.
>
> hmmm, did not see the ebuild for this?
If "this" is kat, sure I did, and perhaps I improved it a bit :-)
Have you read the whole report?

> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92113
>
> ah yes, my favorite line is: "
> ------- Comment #3 From Carsten Lohrke 2005-06-13 09:41 PST [reply]
> -------
>
> Jan, see the relationship developers/packages, grep the tree for
> unmaintened packages and you see the problem. Before someone comes
> and says "it's just about putting this ebuild in cvs" - it's not. I
> did not add a single new package (despite new dependencies) for
> months and I don't intend to do so in the future. Get active¹²
> yourself."
>
> Maybe a convient mechanism for non-sanctioned packages is what's
> needed portage overlay is a pain and once you bet many packages,
> beocmes a microcosm in disfuctionality. It's just like the docs
> delima where individually  we waste a huge amount of time manually
> duplicating what should be automated.? I.E. Since gentoo is a
> source-code system, we should have more packages than debian, not
> less.....(ymmv).

What's wrong with overlays? The reason not all ebuilds are in portage is 
explained in that bug report.

> You know, I should keep my mouth shut, but, what the hell.
> I'm the only person to have gottenn 86'd from this gentoo
> user list..(hi Neil)....(it's difficult to insult my integrity,
> cause I do not believe any human has integrity....).
I was the one to blame then, as I asked for comments :-)
[...]
Ciao
	Francesco

-- 
Linux Version 2.6.17-gentoo-r2, Compiled #1 PREEMPT Sat Jul 8 07:47:35 
CEST 2006
One 2.2GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processor, 2GB RAM, 4410.79 Bogomips Total
aemaeth
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: d

[James]

Francesco Talamona <ti.liame <at> email.it> writes:

> > The closest
> > would be
> > beagle (I haven't looked a beagle since 0.0.10).
> Using 0.2.7, it's quite good.


Boy this is interesting.

beagle: /etc/beagle /usr/lib/beagle /usr/share/beagle

/usr/lib/beagle  show a mulitude of *.exe  *.dll files

these are microsuck files (yuck)....

no man beagle

I can't seem to find the executable to lauch beagle
nor any documentation  (this is ironic, 
a package to make various types of documentation
availabe via one system, has no docs.....?)



I did find the beagle docs online, but, I'm not
too interested in installing a package that contains
lots of binaries.....

What's up with all of those binaries? dll and .exe 
files

After reading a while I figure out its a bunch of
mostly binary files that when the beagled is ran
it takes hours to index your personal (~user) files.

I was looking for a tool to search and combine
the various types of documentation, from a variety
of locations realted to software I emerge.

I do not think I need a (clandestine) binary only demon
running for hours to parse and index my personal stuff.

Sounds very suspect to me....

If anyone has so much stuff they cannot organize, it's
time to hit the delete key.....

James




-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: d

[Roy Wright]

James wrote:
> Boy this is interesting.
>
> beagle: /etc/beagle /usr/lib/beagle /usr/share/beagle
>
> /usr/lib/beagle  show a mulitude of *.exe  *.dll files
>
> these are microsuck files (yuck)....
>   
Beagle is a mono application.  Mono is the open source implementation
of C# which is a derivative of java aimed specifically at windoze by M$.
That should explain the .exe and .dll naming conventions...  :-(

HTH,
Roy
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: d

[Hans-Werner Hilse]

Hi,

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:07:44 -0500 Roy Wright <royw@cisco.com> wrote:

> Beagle is a mono application.  Mono is the open source implementation
> of C# which is a derivative of java aimed specifically at windoze by M
> $.

wrong. C# is a dialect one can use to create .NET programs. .NET is a
bit similar to the Java concept. But there are numerous other languages
one can use to create .NET assemblies.

Mono is an attempt to create a .NET environment for the FOSS world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_development_platform


-hwh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: d

[Roy Wright]

Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:07:44 -0500 Roy Wright <royw@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Beagle is a mono application.  Mono is the open source implementation
>> of C# which is a derivative of java aimed specifically at windoze by M
>> $.
>>     
>
> wrong. C# is a dialect one can use to create .NET programs. .NET is a
> bit similar to the Java concept. But there are numerous other languages
> one can use to create .NET assemblies.
>
> Mono is an attempt to create a .NET environment for the FOSS world.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_development_platform
>
>
> -hwh
>   
OK, C# was derived from C++, Java, and Delphi.  .NET is basically a byte 
code interpreter
similar in concept to java's virtual machine.  I was wrong in not 
separating the C# language
compiler from the .NET environment.  Mono consists of both.  At one time 
MS planned
a bunch of languages for the .NET environment that could inter-operate 
at the byte code
level.  I haven't heard what happened with that (probably because I just 
don't care about
windoze and .NET).

Have fun,
Roy
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: d

[James]

Roy Wright <royw <at> cisco.com> writes:


> Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:

> > wrong. C# is a dialect one can use to create .NET programs. .NET is a
> > bit similar to the Java concept. But there are numerous other languages
> > one can use to create .NET assemblies.

> > Mono is an attempt to create a .NET environment for the FOSS world.

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_development_platform

> > -hwh

thanks for the info Hans,


> OK, C# was derived from C++, Java, and Delphi.  .NET is basically a byte 
> code interpreter
> similar in concept to java's virtual machine.  I was wrong in not 
> separating the C# language
> compiler from the .NET environment.  Mono consists of both.  At one time 
> MS planned
> a bunch of languages for the .NET environment that could inter-operate 
> at the byte code
> level.  I haven't heard what happened with that (probably because I just 
> don't care about
> windoze and .NET).

> Roy


All very interesting, but, I'm not particular fond of Novell (too many
historical issues) so I'll avoid this sort of licensing. Besides
.exe as a file name, just pisses me off.....

The biggest problem is I'm looking for a tool, gui, or automated
approach to discover documents (html, xml, doc-book etc) that
go with the myriad of software pacakges. I do not need a
tool to parse my directories, I'm looking for a tool that saves
me time by producing a unified deliver mechanism for ellusive
documentation.

Like man pages for ascii text, but which covers all of the various types
and locations for docs. Collectively, a lot of time is wasted since
each individual has to search ebuilds, lib, share, wikis, web sites
and googling to find these documents, which sometimes exist and sometimes
do not exist, in a menagerie of forms.


thanks but, no thanks.


James



-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: d

[Justin R Findlay]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:27:30PM +0000, James wrote:
> Like man pages for ascii text, but which covers all of the various types
> and locations for docs. Collectively, a lot of time is wasted since
> each individual has to search ebuilds, lib, share, wikis, web sites
> and googling to find these documents, which sometimes exist and sometimes
> do not exist, in a menagerie of forms.

Do you know you just asked the celebrated paramount question of this the
Information Age?

Although it's not quite in it's general form, still it's wonderful to
stumble upon it pristine in the wild.

Sorry, I'll go back to my taciturn corner now.


Justin
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: d

[Roy Wright]

James wrote:
> The biggest problem is I'm looking for a tool, gui, or automated
> approach to discover documents (html, xml, doc-book etc) that
> go with the myriad of software pacakges. I do not need a
> tool to parse my directories, I'm looking for a tool that saves
> me time by producing a unified deliver mechanism for ellusive
> documentation.
>
> Like man pages for ascii text, but which covers all of the various types
> and locations for docs. Collectively, a lot of time is wasted since
> each individual has to search ebuilds, lib, share, wikis, web sites
> and googling to find these documents, which sometimes exist and sometimes
> do not exist, in a menagerie of forms.
>   
Playing around I have a little script that does part of what I think you 
are looking for.
Here's a sample output when asking about two terms: "portage" and "lex":

$ about portage lex
checking if lex belongs to a package
lex belongs to flex

sys-apps/portage [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/index.xml]  
Installed: 2.1.1_pre2-r7
/usr/share/man/man5
/usr/doc/portage-2.1.1_pre2-r7
/usr/share/doc/portage-2.1.1_pre2-r7
/usr/portage/sys-apps/portage/portage-2.1.1_pre2-r7.ebuild

lex
/usr/share/man/man1p


lex belongs to sys-devel/flex [http://lex.sourceforge.net/]  Installed: 
2.5.33-r1
/usr/share/man/man1
/usr/share/info
/usr/doc/flex-2.5.33-r1
/usr/share/doc/flex-2.5.33-r1
/usr/portage/sys-devel/flex/flex-2.5.33-r1.ebuild


This basically just harvests:

* URL from portage by running `eix --exact --format "<homepage>" #{name}`
* if a homepage is not found, then try to find the parent with an 
`equery belongs`
* the directory of any man pages
* the directory of any info pages
* any doc directories for the package

Now it doesn't attempt to harvest any info from the documentation, nor does
it search the web.  I'm playing with harvesting portage elog info next.

If you want to play with it, you will need the following installed:

  app-portage/eix
  app-portage/gentoolkit
  dev-lang/ruby

The script is temporary available at:  http://roy.wright.org/about.rb

Installation is simply to copy it to your ~/bin directory and chmod +x
it.

Have fun,
Roy

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list