Re: Anybody working on Sun's JavaHelp .jar (GPLed)
two people, myself among them, expressed interest to package JavaHelp
but both also said that they had no time right now; so the field is
As a side note, Jaroslav and Fernando (attached email) from the JPackage
project have got JaveHelp packaged, you might want to liaise with them
to not duplicate work (my experience is, that though very different, RPM
and DEB packaging faces the same issues).
PS: and what about xsdlib?.. :-P
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Discussion about JPackage project <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [JPackage-discuss] Let's move JavaHelp to free
- From: Fernando Nasser <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:56:05 -0500
- Message-id: <458ABCA5.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Discussion about JPackage project <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <458A9044.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I've made a few changes and uploaded it to the JPP 1.7 'devel' area.
Asked Jason to review it for us.
I will implement his changes later today or tomorrow morning, add the
switch mechanism and then re-upload it to 'free'.
Thanks again for taking the initiative to get javahelp into the free
Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
> <quote who="Fernando Nasser">
>> Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
>>> <quote who="Fernando Nasser">
>>> The javahelp has a conditional reference to JDIC sources. It works
>>> without them, but if the class is found it has better integration with
>>> native browser (I guess firefox is supported on Unixes).
>>> The JDIC project is LGPL: https://jdic.dev.java.net/
>>> I see two ways how to fix the problem:
>>> 1. patch the sources to not refer to the JDIC project
>>> 2. provide SPEC file for the JDIC project as well
>>> Which one should be taken in your opinion?
>>> PS: I guess #1 is simpler, so I try that one for now. Also I try to
>>> investigate why the build succeeds on my computer.
>> I'd like to make this an option. That way one can specify a '--with
>> jdic' to build with this support (one will do if they have the jdic
>> package) or not.
>> So, if you provide a patch, I can add the switch and we leave it as
>> default 'without' until you can produce a spec file for the jdic as
>> well. Then we upload the 'jdic' one and make the default 'with'.
> New SPEC for --without jdic is attached to the issue #243. I am not familiar
> with use of --with in RPM spec files, so please add it yourself. The only
> line that needs to be executed/disabled according to the option is the "rm
> blabla.java" in %setup
> JPackage-discuss mailing list
JPackage-discuss mailing list
--- End Message ---