Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: > Le mardi 08 décembre 2009 20:09:57, Onkar Shinde a écrit : >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Adrian Perez <adrianperez.deb@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> Hello Mathias. >>> >>> Although is still an open discussion, we're making our best efforts to >>> not build SWT from eclipse at all, and just make it depend on the >>> swt-gtk generated packages. >> I am in agreement with Adrian here. There are at least two other >> packages that depend on swt. If we don't maintain separate swt-gtk >> package then for every bugfix that needs to be done to swt we will >> need to upload new eclipse revision/version. This will unnecessarily >> add to maintenance. > > You're right, it's the way to go : drop libswt-* packages from eclipse source > tarball and replace them with packages from swt source package (and not the > other way, as I said earlier). > > What's your timeline here : > - Upload swt-gtk 3.5.1 source package as is ? > - Remove eclipse swt packages now (seems a huge task) ? > - Upload eclipse 3.5 unchanged ? > > Cheers, Hi The eclipse team (per IRC and now also per mail) agreed to use src:swt-gtk binaries for eclipse as well. I am perfectly okay with this provided eclipse works using the swt-gtk binaries - this was not the case with 3.4.1; but hopefully 3.4.1 was just a very rotten fruit. Past experiences have shown that eclipse has kept packages out of testing before - using a separate swt-gtk would prevent that as well. Currently I am working on the last OSGi related bugs (tomcat6[1], jetty and lucene2 remains) and will focus on that. I firmly believe this can keep my burning passion for eclipse satisfied in-between my exams. Seriously though, I hope someone would take up the "using swt-gtk with eclipse" test - Adrian and Benjamin, if neither you do not have time for this; then I suggest we call another RFH on this. If - by the time we get the OSGi bugs sorted out - swt-gtk + eclipse has been tested and is known to work; I do not mind waiting a bit further to get that merged into the main development branch. But if that test lacks positive results, I will push for uploading eclipse with renamed swt-packages (currently they name clash with swt-gtk due to Adrian's commit[2] back in Aug). I realize that it may to the casual reader appear as if I lack the fundamental traits to maintain and provide the high quality packages that Debian gives its end users - the truth however is that I am beginning to feel I am failing our users; it has been 4 months since I ITA'ed eclipse, we got 22 pending bugs to be closed with an new upload and my feeling that "Yes, this is it - eclipse is almost done" was flushed down the toilet with the eclipse build issue with tomcat6 + this swt-gtk debate. It is not that I do not want to pack eclipse properly; it is the lack of results which is taking is toll on me [3]. Anyhow, Damien, this is the timeline I vision: 1. complete the upload of swt-gtk 3.5.1 2. Someone check the swt-gtk binaries + eclipse. 3. We/I finish up the OSGi problems. At this point, depending on the result of 2. we either upload eclipse with (renamed) swt packages - or if 2. turned out successful (which I hope); without swt binaries from eclipse. ~Niels [1] It is supposedly ready; but we had some difficulties rebuilding eclipse with it, which is why there has been no RFS on it yet. [2] http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-java/eclipse.git;a=commitdiff;h=8c972443757b808e752c208683737a50e669b200 [3] By now I am fully aware of why Michael Koch said "never more" to eclipse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature