From what I can tell, Fedora Core 4 provides a very good Java 1.4.2 development environment. The one thing that I cannot find is Java API documentation (the equivalent of JPackage's java-1.4.2-sun-manual).
Have I just missed it, or is it not available?
Thanks!
On Thu, 2005-30-06 at 16:24 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
From what I can tell, Fedora Core 4 provides a very good Java 1.4.2 development environment. The one thing that I cannot find is Java API documentation (the equivalent of JPackage's java-1.4.2-sun-manual).
Have I just missed it, or is it not available?
You haven't missed it, no. I believe Anthony Green did some packaging of the libgcj or Classpath javadocs. Anthony? This could be a good candidate for Fedora Extras (and potentially Fedora Core 5).
Andrew
Andrew Overholt wrote:
You haven't missed it, no. I believe Anthony Green did some packaging of the libgcj or Classpath javadocs. Anthony? This could be a good candidate for Fedora Extras (and potentially Fedora Core 5).
I found classpath-javadoc or JPackage.org, which looks like exactly what I'm looking for. Unfortunately, it conflicts with Fedora's version of jpackage-utils, which owns /usr/share/javadoc/java.
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:16 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
Have I just missed it, or is it not available?
You haven't missed it, no. I believe Anthony Green did some packaging of the libgcj or Classpath javadocs. Anthony? This could be a good candidate for Fedora Extras (and potentially Fedora Core 5).
Here's the SRPM. I haven't tried building it in a while.
http://people.redhat.com/green/libgcj-docs-4.0.0-1.src.rpm
I look into submitting it to extras. This reminds me... we should import the GNU Classpath package description html files into GCC.
Thanks,
AG
* Anthony Green green@redhat.com [2005-07-05 16:44]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:16 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
Have I just missed it, or is it not available?
You haven't missed it, no. I believe Anthony Green did some packaging of the libgcj or Classpath javadocs. Anthony? This could be a good candidate for Fedora Extras (and potentially Fedora Core 5).
Here's the SRPM. I haven't tried building it in a while.
It builds great for me. I think we should change it to require libgcj-src, though, since that's what provides /usr/share/java/src-4.0.0.zip. Otherwise, it looks good to me.
I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
By "I" do you mean "I'll"? I can look into it if you want.
Andrew
* Anthony Green green@redhat.com [2005-07-05 17:24]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:57 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
On second thought, should we ship this or classpath-javadoc?
Andrew
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:38 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
- Anthony Green green@redhat.com [2005-07-05 17:24]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:57 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
On second thought, should we ship this or classpath-javadoc?
Why would it make sense to ship classpath javadoc? We don't ship classpath.
AG
* Anthony Green green@redhat.com [2005-07-05 17:58]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:38 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
- Anthony Green green@redhat.com [2005-07-05 17:24]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:57 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
On second thought, should we ship this or classpath-javadoc?
Why would it make sense to ship classpath javadoc? We don't ship classpath.
I know. I think this should go into the gcc RPM and not as a standalone package.
Andrew
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:59 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
- Anthony Green green@redhat.com [2005-07-05 17:58]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:38 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
- Anthony Green green@redhat.com [2005-07-05 17:24]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:57 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
On second thought, should we ship this or classpath-javadoc?
Why would it make sense to ship classpath javadoc? We don't ship classpath.
I know. I think this should go into the gcc RPM and not as a standalone package.
Oh, right - I agree.
I wrote this package after we started hearing about the FC4 size problems. I would have submitted a GCC spec file patch to Jakub otherwise.
AG
* Anthony Green green@redhat.com [2005-07-05 18:03]:
I know. I think this should go into the gcc RPM and not as a standalone package.
Oh, right - I agree.
I wrote this package after we started hearing about the FC4 size problems. I would have submitted a GCC spec file patch to Jakub otherwise.
We don't really have to worry about size restrictions for FC5 (yet) or for FC4 updates.
Andrew
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 14:58 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:38 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
- Anthony Green green@redhat.com [2005-07-05 17:24]:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:57 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
I look into submitting it to extras. [...]
On second thought, should we ship this or classpath-javadoc?
Why would it make sense to ship classpath javadoc? We don't ship classpath.
For the record. Whether you use libgcj, kaffe or classpath as core class libraries in principle the documentation generated by gjdoc should be the same for all three. Since they all are build from GNU Classpath sources. Modulo small bug fixes/not yet merged documentation updates of course.
Cheers,
Mark
Anthony Green wrote:
Here's the SRPM. I haven't tried building it in a while.
It should BuildRequire libgcj-src.
I look into submitting it to extras. This reminds me... we should import the GNU Classpath package description html files into GCC.
I'd argue that it should be in Core (and that it should be built as part of the libgcj SRPM). I'd also suggest having a java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-doc RPM which creates appropriate symlinks in /usr/share/javadoc. (See my other note about the ownership of /usr/share/javadoc/java.)
Good stuff!
* Ian Pilcher i.pilcher@comcast.net [2005-07-05 17:16]:
I look into submitting it to extras. This reminds me... we should import the GNU Classpath package description html files into GCC.
I'd argue that it should be in Core (and that it should be built as part of the libgcj SRPM). I'd also suggest having a java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-doc RPM which creates appropriate symlinks in /usr/share/javadoc. (See my other note about the ownership of /usr/share/javadoc/java.)
I agree.
Andrew
Andrew Overholt wrote:
- Ian Pilcher i.pilcher@comcast.net [2005-07-05 17:16]:
I'd argue that it should be in Core (and that it should be built as part of the libgcj SRPM). I'd also suggest having a java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-doc RPM which creates appropriate symlinks in /usr/share/javadoc. (See my other note about the ownership of /usr/share/javadoc/java.)
I agree.
FYI - I've put an RFE in bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=162534
It's under GCC, since that's where libgcj comes from. Interested parties on the Java side of things may want to add themselves to the cc list.
On second thought, I believe that the "compatibility" package should probably be named classpath-javadoc-libgcj-compat, since it will provide compatibility with JPackage's classpath-javadoc.
Thanks!
Anthony Green wrote:
I look into submitting it to extras. This reminds me... we should import the GNU Classpath package description html files into GCC.
Anthony -
I'm playing with the GCC SPEC file, working on adding a libgcj-doc subpackage. Can you provide some more detail on the statement above (i.e. where are the package descriptions found, and how would I "import" them)?
Thanks!
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 17:05 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
I'm playing with the GCC SPEC file, working on adding a libgcj-doc subpackage.
Great!
Can you provide some more detail on the statement above (i.e. where are the package descriptions found, and how would I "import" them)?
You'll want to look for the GNU Classpath project CVS sources.
I believe each java source directory contains a package.html file which is incorporated into the HTML docs generated by gjdoc. Our libjava tree in GCC is missing these files.
However...
I believe tromey has a plan to merge these into the FSF GCC HEAD tree for future GCC releases (4.1, etc), but this is something we can't really apply to the FSF 4.0 branch we're using in FC4.
I believe the 4.0 branch is frozen right now, so I don't know what the best thing to do is. Either we merge those files into the FSF 4.0 branch and hope that Jakub picks it up in his FC4 gcc respin, or we a patch to add the files and bundle that in the GCC RPM.
Maybe somebody who knows more about the FC GCC plan can suggest an approach.
AG
java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Andrew Overholt -
Anthony Green -
Ian Pilcher -
Mark Wielaard -
Tom Tromey