Hello all, I've been playing with suse java-1_5_0-sun.spec and update it with latest 1_5_0-05 build from sun site archives. The rpms have been built with success in my SuSE 9.3 system. The question is ¿Can we release this rpms?. There are java rpms on SuSE site and mirrors but I'm not sure about release conditions. I'm afraid I can't, only SuSE can relase them :( . I'm wrong? Guillermo -- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv@oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html #################################################### See World Weather Navigator at http://www.ogimet.com ####################################################
On Sunday 20 November 2005 13:57, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
I've been playing with suse java-1_5_0-sun.spec and update it with latest 1_5_0-05 build from sun site archives.
The rpms have been built with success in my SuSE 9.3 system. The question is ¿Can we release this rpms?. There are java rpms on SuSE site and mirrors but I'm not sure about release conditions. I'm afraid I can't, only SuSE can relase them :( . I'm wrong?
You need a written permission from Sun to publish them, yes. bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany email: adrian@suse.de
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 14:03, Adrian Schroeter escribió:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 13:57, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
I've been playing with suse java-1_5_0-sun.spec and update it with latest 1_5_0-05 build from sun site archives.
The rpms have been built with success in my SuSE 9.3 system. The question is ¿Can we release this rpms?. There are java rpms on SuSE site and mirrors but I'm not sure about release conditions. I'm afraid I can't, only SuSE can relase them :( . I'm wrong?
You need a written permission from Sun to publish them, yes.
bye adrian
So, SuSE could update to 1_5_0-05 ;-) . A lot of bug fixes has been made since 1_5_0-03, including a final release for X86_64 version. http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/ReleaseNotes.html I guess this will be updated for the upcoming SuSE 10.1. Greetings, Guillermo -- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv@oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html #################################################### See World Weather Navigator at http://www.ogimet.com ####################################################
On Sunday 20 November 2005 16:31, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
I guess this will be updated for the upcoming SuSE 10.1. I hope it will be in 10.0 ;-)
-- Damian Mihai Liviu Mobile: +40 741 226993; Fax: +1 347-632-4117 Phone : +1 360-526-6441; +1 347-632-4117; +44 0870-3403339 URL: http://liviudm.blogspot.com
Damian Mihai Liviu <dazzle.digital@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 16:31, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
I guess this will be updated for the upcoming SuSE 10.1. I hope it will be in 10.0 ;-)
10.0 is a done deal, we're not going to add version updates for it - we're fixing security bugs only, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Damian Mihai Liviu <dazzle.digital@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 16:31, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
I guess this will be updated for the upcoming SuSE 10.1. I hope it will be in 10.0 ;-)
10.0 is a done deal, we're not going to add version updates for it - we're fixing security bugs only,
This is the thing I would like to have changed: create a package of software, give it a label (10.0) and then go on to create the next package and only do security updates. There is no technical reason why e.g. vim 6.4 (there is a source rpm for it for 10.1 alpha) won't be released for 10.0. I would love to have a stable base (10.0, it's much better than 9.3 to my opinion) and then improve it incrementally. The big plus for e.g. Debian is that you can upgrade by only installing packages without the need to use a e.g. boot cdrom which is not so easy when you have installed you're software on remote locations. Is this strategy open for discussion or is there a Novell veto for it (I could take away some SLES customers)?
Andreas
Have a nice weekend, Aschwin Marsman -- aschwin@marsman.org http://www.marsman.org
Aschwin Marsman <aschwin@marsman.org> writes:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Damian Mihai Liviu <dazzle.digital@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 16:31, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
I guess this will be updated for the upcoming SuSE 10.1. I hope it will be in 10.0 ;-)
10.0 is a done deal, we're not going to add version updates for it - we're fixing security bugs only,
This is the thing I would like to have changed: create a package of software, give it a label (10.0) and then go on to create the next package and only do security updates.
There is no technical reason why e.g. vim 6.4 (there is a source rpm for it for 10.1 alpha) won't be released for 10.0. I would love to have a stable base (10.0, it's much better than 9.3 to my opinion) and then improve it incrementally. The big plus for e.g. Debian is that you can upgrade by only installing packages without the need to use a e.g. boot cdrom which is not so easy when you have installed you're software on remote locations.
Is this strategy open for discussion or is there a Novell veto for it (I could take away some SLES customers)?
The problem I see is where to make a boundary: * Any update, even a minor one, might break existing software * What do you define as stable base? Some people might like to see glibc and GCC updated as well. We're working hard to keep our development base really stable - this is a change for us since earlier where our development base was internally we did break it Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Aschwin Marsman <aschwin@marsman.org> writes:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
10.0 is a done deal, we're not going to add version updates for it - we're fixing security bugs only,
This is the thing I would like to have changed: create a package of software, give it a label (10.0) and then go on to create the next package and only do security updates.
There is no technical reason why e.g. vim 6.4 (there is a source rpm for it for 10.1 alpha) won't be released for 10.0. I would love to have a stable base (10.0, it's much better than 9.3 to my opinion) and then improve it incrementally. The big plus for e.g. Debian is that you can upgrade by only installing packages without the need to use a e.g. boot cdrom which is not so easy when you have installed you're software on remote locations.
Is this strategy open for discussion or is there a Novell veto for it (I could take away some SLES customers)?
The problem I see is where to make a boundary:
* Any update, even a minor one, might break existing software
As a start you can only update package which are at the leaves of the dependancy tree, no programs are depending on them. For e.g. vim 6.4 is the same as vim 6.3 including patches, no new developments that are done for 6.4. New developments are done for vim 7: spell checking, additional data types for use in vim script, intellisense like feature etc. but this is currently under development, mainly by Bram Moolenaar. So without problems you can update vim-6.3.84-2 to vim-6.4.x. The same will do for a lot of other packages. It would be nice for a start that you can build a openSUSE 10.1rc... src rpm for openSUSE 10.0, like Debian stable, testing, unstable: you have a choice.
* What do you define as stable base? Some people might like to see glibc and GCC updated as well.
This is possible if it's binary compatible.
We're working hard to keep our development base really stable - this is a change for us since earlier where our development base was internally we did break it
How does Debian handle this? We might learn something from them: and no, I'm not advocating a stable version for openSUSE like the Debian stable: this changes too slow. Let's keep the best things of openSUSE and try to improve it evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Andreas
Best regards from the Netherlands, Aschwin Marsman -- aschwin@marsman.org http://www.marsman.org
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 14:03, Adrian Schroeter escribió:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 13:57, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
I've been playing with suse java-1_5_0-sun.spec and update it with latest 1_5_0-05 build from sun site archives.
The rpms have been built with success in my SuSE 9.3 system. The question is ¿Can we release this rpms?. There are java rpms on SuSE site and mirrors but I'm not sure about release conditions. I'm afraid I can't, only SuSE can relase them :( . I'm wrong?
You need a written permission from Sun to publish them, yes.
bye adrian
Just curious. And what about a script that ask user to download the proper *.bin files from sun.com site, and use modified suse spec file to make the rpms?. User then could install its own rpms. Would this be legal?. Guillermo -- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv@oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html #################################################### See World Weather Navigator at http://www.ogimet.com ####################################################
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
You need a written permission from Sun to publish them, yes.
Just curious. And what about a script that ask user to download the proper *.bin files from sun.com site, and use modified suse spec file to make the rpms?. User then could install its own rpms. Would this be legal?.
That would be the approach of the jpackage project [http://www.jpackage.org/], if I get it right. Let's not try to duplicate their effort. Regards Christoph
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 20:35, Christoph Thiel escribió:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
You need a written permission from Sun to publish them, yes.
Just curious. And what about a script that ask user to download the proper *.bin files from sun.com site, and use modified suse spec file to make the rpms?. User then could install its own rpms. Would this be legal?.
That would be the approach of the jpackage project [http://www.jpackage.org/], if I get it right. Let's not try to duplicate their effort.
Thanks for the link. No, I'll not duplicate their effort ;-) Best regards, Guillermo -- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv@oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html #################################################### See World Weather Navigator at http://www.ogimet.com ####################################################
SUSE is switching to JPackage spec files at the moment, using as much as possible of their work (and contribute back of course :) ). SPEC files of the 1.4.2 packages are already switched, 1.5 are on the to-do list for today :) The JPackage solution at the moment is to create a 'nosrc' package, which requires to rebuild the package ( http://www.jpackage.org/rebuilding.php ). This is not a very user-friendly way but the only possible solution at the moment (for the OSS version). For SUSE we currently ship the JDKs with the distribution. For the OSS version we could include 'nosrc' packages along with a how-to on the openSUSE site on how to install these packages. In the middle term we should try to switch to the open source tool chain gcj/classpath to avoid these problems. Best Regards, Daniel
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 20:35, Christoph Thiel escribió:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
You need a written permission from Sun to publish them, yes.
Just curious. And what about a script that ask user to download the proper *.bin files from sun.com site, and use modified suse spec file to make the rpms?. User then could install its own rpms. Would this be legal?.
That would be the approach of the jpackage project [http://www.jpackage.org/], if I get it right. Let's not try to duplicate their effort.
Thanks for the link. No, I'll not duplicate their effort ;-)
Best regards,
Guillermo
El Lunes, 21 de Noviembre de 2005 11:37, Daniel Bornkessel escribió:
SUSE is switching to JPackage spec files at the moment, using as much as possible of their work (and contribute back of course :) ). SPEC files of the 1.4.2 packages are already switched, 1.5 are on the to-do list for today :) The JPackage solution at the moment is to create a 'nosrc' package, which requires to rebuild the package ( http://www.jpackage.org/rebuilding.php ). This is not a very user-friendly way but the only possible solution at the moment (for the OSS version).
I agree. I really don't understand Sun policy about Java distribution. I think Java would be even more used world around with a more permisive license.
For SUSE we currently ship the JDKs with the distribution. For the OSS version we could include 'nosrc' packages along with a how-to on the openSUSE site on how to install these packages.
It seems a good solution.
In the middle term we should try to switch to the open source tool chain gcj/classpath to avoid these problems.
I don't know how is the state of GNU java. I recall I read it already reached a good compatibilty with Sun 1.4 int its latest gcc-4.x , but I'm not a Java expert. Regards, Guillermo -- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv@oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html #################################################### See World Weather Navigator at http://www.ogimet.com ####################################################
participants (7)
-
Adrian Schroeter -
Andreas Jaeger -
Aschwin Marsman -
Christoph Thiel -
Damian Mihai Liviu -
Daniel Bornkessel -
Guillermo Ballester Valor