Debian Bug report logs - #681726
eclipse: Upgrade to latest upstream release (HELP WANTED)

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matt Wittmann <webdev@mattwittmann.com>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:33:26 -0500

Package: eclipse
Version: 3.8.0~rc4-1
Severity: wishlist

Dear Maintainer,

With the Juno simultaneous release of Eclipse, the 3.x series has been
deprecated in favor of 4.x. According to the press release entitled "Eclipse
Juno Release Train Has Arrived":

"Eclipse 4.2 in now the mainstream platform for the Eclipse community. The
existing Eclipse 3.x code stream is being put into maintenance mode. Eclipse
4.2 includes a compatibility layer that allows existing Eclipse plugins and RCP
applications to work on the new platform."

http://www.eclipse.org/org/press-release/20120627_junorelease.php

Eclipse 3.8 is not considered the main release of Eclipse Juno but is only
intended for backwards compatibility. Please move the wheezy release from 3.8
to 4.2.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages eclipse depends on:
ii  eclipse-jdt  3.8.0~rc4-1
ii  eclipse-pde  3.8.0~rc4-1

eclipse recommends no packages.

eclipse suggests no packages.

Versions of packages eclipse-platform depends on:
ii  ant                            1.8.2-4
ii  ant-optional                   1.8.2-4
ii  default-jre [java6-runtime]    1:1.6-47
ii  eclipse-platform-data          3.8.0~rc4-1
ii  eclipse-rcp                    3.8.0~rc4-1
ii  gcj-4.7-jre [java5-runtime]    4.7.1-1
ii  gconf-service                  3.2.5-1
ii  java-common                    0.47
ii  libc6                          2.13-33
ii  libcommons-codec-java          1.6-1
ii  libcommons-httpclient-java     3.1-10
ii  libcommons-logging-java        1.1.1-9
ii  libgconf-2-4                   3.2.5-1
ii  libglib2.0-0                   2.32.3-1
ii  libjetty8-java                 8.1.3-4
ii  libjsch-java                   0.1.42-2
ii  liblucene2-java                2.9.4+ds1-4
ii  libservlet3.0-java             7.0.28-1
ii  multiarch-support              2.13-33
ii  openjdk-6-jre [java6-runtime]  6b24-1.11.3-2
ii  openjdk-7-jre [java6-runtime]  7~u3-2.1.1-1
ii  sat4j                          2.3.1-1

Versions of packages eclipse-platform recommends:
ii  eclipse-pde  3.8.0~rc4-1

Versions of packages eclipse-platform suggests:
ii  eclipse-jdt  3.8.0~rc4-1

Versions of packages eclipse-pde depends on:
ii  default-jre [java6-runtime]    1:1.6-47
ii  eclipse-jdt                    3.8.0~rc4-1
ii  eclipse-platform               3.8.0~rc4-1
ii  gcj-4.7-jre [java5-runtime]    4.7.1-1
ii  libasm3-java                   3.3.2-1
ii  openjdk-6-jre [java6-runtime]  6b24-1.11.3-2
ii  openjdk-7-jre [java6-runtime]  7~u3-2.1.1-1

eclipse-pde suggests no packages.

Versions of packages eclipse-jdt depends on:
ii  default-jre [java6-runtime]    1:1.6-47
ii  eclipse-platform               3.8.0~rc4-1
ii  gcj-4.7-jre [java5-runtime]    4.7.1-1
ii  junit                          3.8.2-8
ii  junit4                         4.10-3
ii  libhamcrest-java               1.2-2
ii  openjdk-6-jre [java6-runtime]  6b24-1.11.3-2
ii  openjdk-7-jre [java6-runtime]  7~u3-2.1.1-1

Versions of packages eclipse-jdt recommends:
ii  default-jdk  1:1.6-47

eclipse-jdt suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: ciel <cielartisan@gmail.com>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:23:51 +0900

I also need Eclipse 4.2 to debug Caleydo, which doesn't support 3.8...

Sincerely, ciel.

Message #15 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vedran Miletić <rivanvx@gmail.com>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Kepler 4.3 is out

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:56:37 +0200

Hi,

is there any progress or plan regarding the switch to e4?

Regards,
Vedran

Message #20 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>

To: "681726@bugs.debian.org" <681726@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Kepler has been released.

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:49:07 +0100 (BST)

According to wiki

"There is also a 3.8 release of Eclipse, but it is not promoted anywhere on their web site, directing interested users to 4.2. Eclipse 3.8 provides bugfixes for Indigo & adds Java 7 support, but is not a 'packaged distribution' release, and will not be 
maintained after 4.3 "Kepler" is released. Features and plugins 
equivalent to a packaged distribution may be added from within the IDE."


Kepler has been released one month ago.

So please consider updating eclipse to kepler.

Thanks



Gianfranco

Message #35 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrien Grellier <perso@adrieng.fr>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 09:28:53 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi, 

In my laboratory, we are using Debian as the official Linux distribution and Eclipse as the official EDI. So I would like to know if there is any hope to have the 4.* series in Debian before the freeze ? Or will we stay with the 3.* series ?

The freeze start on september, so there is only 2 month to make it… 

Thanks for your work,

Regards,

Adrien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #40 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org>

To: Adrien Grellier <perso@adrieng.fr>, 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:28:32 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 07/06/2014 12:28 AM, Adrien Grellier wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> In my laboratory, we are using Debian as the official Linux distribution and Eclipse as the official EDI. So I would like to know if there is any hope to have the 4.* series in Debian before the freeze ? Or will we stay with the 3.* series ?
> 
> The freeze start on september, so there is only 2 month to make it… 
> 
> Thanks for your work,
> 
> Regards,

Hello Adrien,

It's nice to hear that your laboratory is using to Debian, and I wish I
could state otherwise, however, I think it's very unlikely that we will
have Eclipse 4.x packages ready for the jessie release.  That said, I
would be happy to be proven wrong.

I haven't looked at the challenges of packaging Eclipse 4 directly, but
suspect that it's a large undertaking.  It's primarily a question of
having sufficient volunteer developers to go around.

I didn't want your question to go without an answer.

Regards,
tony

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #45 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to latest release

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:50:05 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I too would have loved to see the Eclipse package upgraded to its most
recent release (version 4.4 codenamed Luna as of today). Eclipse has picked
up quite some pace at my lab for C++ (via CDT) and Python development (via
PyDev).

I'd be happy to provide some of my time to help with the packaging effort
but I cannot do it alone though. Just to echo Adrien that other people care
as well but Eclipse is quite a piece of software to package. Hopefully,
more people may voice their interest.

Cheers,
Ghis

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #50 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sven Claussner <scl.gplus@gmail.com>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Upgrade to latest release (currently 4.5.2)

Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 11:06:48 +0200

Hi,

it's April 2016 and the Eclipse 4.5.2 version is already released.
Even in sid there's still the old, buggy and deprecated 3.8 version.
At https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/eclipse.git I already
see an experimental 4.5 branch.
Could you please update?
The title of this bug report is already too old and should also be
renamed to 'Upgrade to latest release'.

Kind regards,

Sven

Message #55 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Peter Spiess-Knafl <dev@spiessknafl.at>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:12:47 +0200

Hi!

I would also like to know what is exactly the problem that prevents
upgrading to a more recent version of Eclipse?

I think it would be really worth putting effort into getting the latest
version (or at least a more recent version form 4.x) of eclipse into the
next release of Debian.

I could not find an RFH bug for Eclipse but I think one should be filed,
because the current version, even in unstable, is almost four years old.

Greetings
Peter

Message #60 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

To: Peter Spiess-Knafl <dev@spiessknafl.at>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:34:23 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 29.04.2016 um 16:12 schrieb Peter Spiess-Knafl:
> Hi!
> 
> I would also like to know what is exactly the problem that prevents
> upgrading to a more recent version of Eclipse?
> 
> I think it would be really worth putting effort into getting the latest
> version (or at least a more recent version form 4.x) of eclipse into the
> next release of Debian.
> 
> I could not find an RFH bug for Eclipse but I think one should be filed,
> because the current version, even in unstable, is almost four years old.
> 
> Greetings
> Peter

Hi,

the answer is pretty simple. Someone needs to do the work because
Eclipse won't package itself. A lot of time has passed between the
current version in Debian and the most recent version. The new build
system Tycho is completely different and is now Maven based. It must be
packaged first. Several modules must be updated as well. And most
importantly Eclipse must be maintained for the future. It's not about
getting a new version into Debian and then you can stop working on it
and everything will be fine. That's a constant process of repeating tasks.

In my opinion it should be obvious that Eclipse needs help. So an RFH
bug won't change much. Eclipse requires at least one dedicated
maintainer but the more the merrier. So if you want to help us
to_maintain_ the packages, be more than welcome. I would help you to get
the packages into Debian.

Regards,

Markus

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #65 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Peter Spiess-Knafl <dev@spiessknafl.at>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org, apo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:47:19 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Markus!

On 04/29/2016 04:34 PM, Markus Koschany wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the answer is pretty simple. Someone needs to do the work because
> Eclipse won't package itself. 

I did not mean to offend anybody, just wanted to know if its just lack
of time or if there are other already known problems for not packaging it.

> A lot of time has passed between the
> current version in Debian and the most recent version. The new build
> system Tycho is completely different and is now Maven based. It must be
> packaged first. Several modules must be updated as well. And most
> importantly Eclipse must be maintained for the future. It's not about
> getting a new version into Debian and then you can stop working on it
> and everything will be fine. That's a constant process of repeating tasks.
>

Of course, its not solely packaging and than you are fine but currently
that would be the first required action I guess.


> In my opinion it should be obvious that Eclipse needs help. So an RFH
> bug won't change much. 

Maybe not, but it will certainly not do any harm and maybe draw
attention to more developers, maintainers or people who might want to help.

> Eclipse requires at least one dedicated
> maintainer but the more the merrier. So if you want to help us
> to_maintain_ the packages, be more than welcome. I would help you to get
> the packages into Debian.
> 

That is good to know. So currently nobody is working on it? I saw you
made some commits on an experimental branch regarding 4.5.1.

I will take a deeper look and try to check which steps are required to
make an upgrade possible.

You already mentioned packaging the new build-system (tycho). That seems
a logical step to start with.

If any of the current maintainers could provide additional information
to whats required, I would appreciate it very much.


> Regards,
> 
> Markus
> 

Thanks for your reply.

Greetings
Peter

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #70 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

To: Peter Spiess-Knafl <dev@spiessknafl.at>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:55:32 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 29.04.2016 um 18:47 schrieb Peter Spiess-Knafl:
> Hi Markus!
> 
> On 04/29/2016 04:34 PM, Markus Koschany wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the answer is pretty simple. Someone needs to do the work because
>> Eclipse won't package itself. 
> 
> I did not mean to offend anybody, just wanted to know if its just lack
> of time or if there are other already known problems for not packaging it.

No worries. Valid questions won't offend me but I couldn't resist to do
some straight talking here.

>> A lot of time has passed between the
>> current version in Debian and the most recent version. The new build
>> system Tycho is completely different and is now Maven based. It must be
>> packaged first. Several modules must be updated as well. And most
>> importantly Eclipse must be maintained for the future. It's not about
>> getting a new version into Debian and then you can stop working on it
>> and everything will be fine. That's a constant process of repeating tasks.
>>
> 
> Of course, its not solely packaging and than you are fine but currently
> that would be the first required action I guess.

First of all, thanks for your interest in Eclipse. You're right that
packaging a newer release is the first step. However you're not the
first one who tried it and many people underestimate the importance or
difference between packaging something and maintaining it. Maintaining
is a recurring activity and by packaging something you automatically
opt-in for keeping a package in good shape, not forever, but at least
for the foreseeable future. Otherwise you would simply shift the
responsibility to another team member and that's not fair in my opinion.
We are not looking for the fire-and-forget maintainer but for someone
who responds to bug reports, fixes bugs in his packages, forwards
patches upstream etc. Then it is completely fine if you only want to
maintain one or two packages and you are here at the right place.


>> In my opinion it should be obvious that Eclipse needs help. So an RFH
>> bug won't change much. 
> 
> Maybe not, but it will certainly not do any harm and maybe draw
> attention to more developers, maintainers or people who might want to help.

Granted, it won't hurt and I wouldn't object if somebody filed one. In
my opinion RFH bug reports are often not very useful. People who really
care about a package get involved with the packaging anyway, or they
send patches, contact us on IRC or the mailing list. Those guys are
promising because they show autonomy. RFH bugs often attract people who
have never done any packaging work before. I definitely would want that
those people get more involved with Debian but they should show at least
some will to overcome obstacles. People who need too much hand-holding
will quickly give up when they face something unexpected or complicated
and Eclipse is one of the most complex pieces of Java software in the
universe.

If you aren't scared yet, read on...


>> Eclipse requires at least one dedicated
>> maintainer but the more the merrier. So if you want to help us
>> to_maintain_ the packages, be more than welcome. I would help you to get
>> the packages into Debian.
>>
> 
> That is good to know. So currently nobody is working on it? I saw you
> made some commits on an experimental branch regarding 4.5.1.
> 
> I will take a deeper look and try to check which steps are required to
> make an upgrade possible.
> 
> You already mentioned packaging the new build-system (tycho). That seems
> a logical step to start with.
> 
> If any of the current maintainers could provide additional information
> to whats required, I would appreciate it very much.

Luca Vercelli worked on Tycho before but he just wanted to get the
package into Debian and didn't really want to maintain it. You could
search for "debian java list tycho" to find some correspondence on our
mailing list.

e.g.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2016/01/msg00015.html


He also uploaded an unfinished package of Tycho to mentors.debian.net.
It is not perfect but a first start.

https://mentors.debian.net/package/tycho

If we want to get Eclipse 4.x into Stretch, Tycho should be the first
goal. After that we should focus on updating src:eclipse and after that
all other plugins/modules but those are rather optional depending on how
many people intend to help.

My advise is to copy Fedora's approach in packaging Eclipse and Tycho or
at least to learn from them.

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/tycho.git/
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/eclipse.git/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Eclipse

We should find a way to make packaging Eclipse plugins and the base IDE
much simpler in the long run.

If you have questions, or would like to request reviews and sponsorship,
please feel free to ask on debian-java@list.debian.org or on IRC at
irc.debian.org, #debian-java.

Cheers,

Markus

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #83 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Peter Spiess-Knafl <dev@spiessknafl.at>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org, apo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 15:33:46 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi!


On 04/29/2016 07:55 PM, Markus Koschany wrote:
> 
> No worries. Valid questions won't offend me but I couldn't resist to do
> some straight talking here.

Ok, good.


> If you aren't scared yet, read on...
> 

No, not at all

> Luca Vercelli worked on Tycho before but he just wanted to get the
> package into Debian and didn't really want to maintain it. You could
> search for "debian java list tycho" to find some correspondence on our
> mailing list.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2016/01/msg00015.html
> 
> 
> He also uploaded an unfinished package of Tycho to mentors.debian.net.
> It is not perfect but a first start.
> 
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/tycho
> 
> If we want to get Eclipse 4.x into Stretch, Tycho should be the first
> goal. After that we should focus on updating src:eclipse and after that
> all other plugins/modules but those are rather optional depending on how
> many people intend to help.
> 
> My advise is to copy Fedora's approach in packaging Eclipse and Tycho or
> at least to learn from them.
> 
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/tycho.git/
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/eclipse.git/
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Eclipse
> 
> We should find a way to make packaging Eclipse plugins and the base IDE
> much simpler in the long run.

Thanks for all the info, that is a very good starting point.

I have only been related to native library packaging and haven't done
Java packaging yet but the documentation I found so far seems great. So
this might take me a while to get on track.


> If you have questions, or would like to request reviews and sponsorship,
> please feel free to ask on debian-java@list.debian.org or on IRC at
> irc.debian.org, #debian-java.

I will, thank you.

Greetings
Peter

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #90 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

To: mn@mn.com.ua

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: eclipse: Upgrade Eclipse to Juno 4.2

Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 23:29:02 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 05.05.2016 um 22:59 schrieb Mykola Nikishov:
> Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> writes:
> 
>> The new build system Tycho is completely different and is now Maven
>> based. It must be packaged first. Several modules must be updated as
>> well.
> 
> Strictly speaking, Eclipse Tycho is just a set of Maven plug-ins and
> (just a wild guess) not that hard to package.
> 
> The much bigger problem is p2 repositories that Tycho uses to download
> dependencies from. These dependencies are OSGi bundles and should be
> packaged first, right?

You will have to package all build-dependencies as separate Debian
packages if they are not already available. Downloading dependencies at
build time from untrusted repositories is not allowed in Debian.

Markus

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #97 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Antipatico (jaco)" <jacopo@autistici.org>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: So... what's the current state?

Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:08:16 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

so a quite long time passed, are there some updates on the subject?
Is someone working on the issue or still no one has taken the
responsibility to maintain the package?
If someone is  working on it is there anyway to help?

Thanks

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #102 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

To: "Antipatico (jaco)" <jacopo@autistici.org>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: So... what's the current state?

Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:31:24 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 16.12.2016 12:08, Antipatico (jaco) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> so a quite long time passed, are there some updates on the subject?
> Is someone working on the issue or still no one has taken the
> responsibility to maintain the package?
> If someone is  working on it is there anyway to help?

Hi,

the problem is still the same. There must be someone who wants to
maintain Eclipse and package new updates. We now should have all
necessary build-dependencies in Debian. The last one was Tycho which got
accepted four days ago. [1]

We are approaching the Freeze very quickly now and updating Eclipse and
its related modules/plugins is a demanding and time-consuming task. I
have been working on Netbeans 8.2 for a while now and many unexpected
problems prevented that I could spend more time on packaging Eclipse.
Even if Eclipse was packaged today there would basically be no time for
testing anymore.

So help wanted means, please get involved with packaging and maintaining
the software.

Best regards,

Markus Koschany


[1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/tycho

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #113 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>, Matt Wittmann <webdev@mattwittmann.com>, Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:43:02 -0400

I don't think Debian 10 "Buster" should include eclipse and swt-gtk if
they haven't been upgraded past 3.8.

I came across this bug report while trying to remove the unsecure
webkitgtk from Debian. webkitgtk is ready for removal from Debian
Testing in 3 days except…

libswt-webkit-gtk-3-jni has an undeclared dependency on
libwebkitgtk-1.0-0 https://bugs.debian.org/879170

Once libwebkitgtk-1.0-0 is removed, the functionality provided by that
library will be completely broken.

It looks like it might be fixed by "simply" updating swt-gtk and
eclipse to a newer version.

Are there any objections to me requesting that the ftpmasters remove
swt-gtk and eclipse from Debian Testing so that we can complete the
webkitgtk removal from Testing?

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

Message #118 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>, 681726@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>, Matt Wittmann <webdev@mattwittmann.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 18:47:48 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Am 20.10.2017 um 18:43 schrieb Jeremy Bicha:
> I don't think Debian 10 "Buster" should include eclipse and swt-gtk if
> they haven't been upgraded past 3.8.
> 
> I came across this bug report while trying to remove the unsecure
> webkitgtk from Debian. webkitgtk is ready for removal from Debian
> Testing in 3 days except…
> 
> libswt-webkit-gtk-3-jni has an undeclared dependency on
> libwebkitgtk-1.0-0 https://bugs.debian.org/879170
> 
> Once libwebkitgtk-1.0-0 is removed, the functionality provided by that
> library will be completely broken.
> 
> It looks like it might be fixed by "simply" updating swt-gtk and
> eclipse to a newer version.
> 
> Are there any objections to me requesting that the ftpmasters remove
> swt-gtk and eclipse from Debian Testing so that we can complete the
> webkitgtk removal from Testing?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeremy Bicha

Thank you for contacting us. I completely agree with you. Eclipse in its
current state should not be a blocker for other packages in testing. I
can't promise anything but I will try to get the package in shape again
but this process will be quite slow probably, so the request for help is
as valid as ever.

Regards,

Markus

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #123 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

To: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:11:49 -0400

Control: severity -1 serious

I'm elevating this bug to RC then.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

Message #130 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

To: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org, Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>, Matt Wittmann <webdev@mattwittmann.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:52:39 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> wrote:
> Am 20.10.2017 um 18:43 schrieb Jeremy Bicha:
>> Are there any objections to me requesting that the ftpmasters remove
>> swt-gtk and eclipse from Debian Testing so that we can complete the
>> webkitgtk removal from Testing?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeremy Bicha
>
> Thank you for contacting us. I completely agree with you. Eclipse in its
> current state should not be a blocker for other packages in testing. I
> can't promise anything but I will try to get the package in shape again
> but this process will be quite slow probably, so the request for help is
> as valid as ever.

Never mind. I tried doing the dak queries and I eventually got more
than 500 reverse-depends before I gave up. (Attached)

The only other reverse-depends of libswt-webkit-gtk-3-jni in Testing
now is tuxguitar which was already switched in Unstable to swt4-gtk
which should work with webkit2gtk.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

[eclipse-dak-rm.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #135 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>, 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 00:24:27 +0200

Le 20/10/2017 à 23:52, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :

> Never mind. I tried doing the dak queries and I eventually got more
> than 500 reverse-depends before I gave up. (Attached)

Funny, I never realized that src:eclipse was basically holding most of
the Java packages. Maybe this package deserves some of my attention
after all ;)

Message #140 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

To: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 00:33:11 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 21.10.2017 um 00:24 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> Le 20/10/2017 à 23:52, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
> 
>> Never mind. I tried doing the dak queries and I eventually got more
>> than 500 reverse-depends before I gave up. (Attached)
> 
> Funny, I never realized that src:eclipse was basically holding most of
> the Java packages. Maybe this package deserves some of my attention
> after all ;)

Please claim this bug or tell me when you start to work on something
related to Eclipse or Tycho, so that we avoid double work.

Thanks

Markus

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #145 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>

To: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 00:38:35 +0200

Le 21/10/2017 à 00:33, Markus Koschany a écrit :

> Please claim this bug or tell me when you start to work on something
> related to Eclipse or Tycho, so that we avoid double work.

For now I'm just working on swt4-gtk. I'll ping the list if I feel ready
for some tycho/eclipse action.

Message #152 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

To: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org, Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>, Matt Wittmann <webdev@mattwittmann.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 15:47:35 -0400

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> wrote:
> Le 20/10/2017 à 23:52, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
>
>> Never mind. I tried doing the dak queries and I eventually got more
>> than 500 reverse-depends before I gave up. (Attached)
>
> Funny, I never realized that src:eclipse was basically holding most of
> the Java packages. Maybe this package deserves some of my attention
> after all ;)

Adrian Bunk suggests removing bnd's Build-Depends on eclipse-jdt and
eclipse-rcp. He thinks that might significantly decrease the number of
affected packages.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

Message #157 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>, Matt Wittmann <webdev@mattwittmann.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 21:23:32 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 01.11.2017 um 20:47 schrieb Jeremy Bicha:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> wrote:
>> Le 20/10/2017 à 23:52, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
>>
>>> Never mind. I tried doing the dak queries and I eventually got more
>>> than 500 reverse-depends before I gave up. (Attached)
>>
>> Funny, I never realized that src:eclipse was basically holding most of
>> the Java packages. Maybe this package deserves some of my attention
>> after all ;)
> 
> Adrian Bunk suggests removing bnd's Build-Depends on eclipse-jdt and
> eclipse-rcp. He thinks that might significantly decrease the number of
> affected packages.

It appears the package can be built without eclipse-jdt and eclipse-rcp.
Works with cowbuilder at least. We probably exclude the eclipse classes
in debian/bootstrap.xml anyway. I'm not exactly sure how the BND Eclipse
plugin is supposed to work because I see we also symlink various jars
into Eclipse specific directories in debian/rules.

I believe it would be possible to drop the build-dependencies on
eclipse-jdt and eclipse-rcp. We would lose the BND Eclipse plugin but
the rest should still continue to work.

Markus

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #162 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

To: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

Cc: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>, 681726@bugs.debian.org, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>, Matt Wittmann <webdev@mattwittmann.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 23:04:29 +0200

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:23:32PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 01.11.2017 um 20:47 schrieb Jeremy Bicha:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Le 20/10/2017 à 23:52, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Never mind. I tried doing the dak queries and I eventually got more
> >>> than 500 reverse-depends before I gave up. (Attached)
> >>
> >> Funny, I never realized that src:eclipse was basically holding most of
> >> the Java packages. Maybe this package deserves some of my attention
> >> after all ;)
> > 
> > Adrian Bunk suggests removing bnd's Build-Depends on eclipse-jdt and
> > eclipse-rcp. He thinks that might significantly decrease the number of
> > affected packages.
> 
> It appears the package can be built without eclipse-jdt and eclipse-rcp.
> Works with cowbuilder at least. We probably exclude the eclipse classes
> in debian/bootstrap.xml anyway. I'm not exactly sure how the BND Eclipse
> plugin is supposed to work because I see we also symlink various jars
> into Eclipse specific directories in debian/rules.
> 
> I believe it would be possible to drop the build-dependencies on
> eclipse-jdt and eclipse-rcp. We would lose the BND Eclipse plugin but
> the rest should still continue to work.

Which Eclipse plugin would we lose?

Before suggesting to drop the build dependency I did of course try it 
with debdiff between the built packages (no difference), and read the 
comment in README.md about the previous Eclipse-specific plugin no 
longer available upstream (which is why I started thinking the build 
dependency might just be a leftover).

> Markus

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Message #167 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org, Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>, Matt Wittmann <webdev@mattwittmann.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 22:32:23 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 01.11.2017 um 22:04 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:23:32PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> Am 01.11.2017 um 20:47 schrieb Jeremy Bicha:
>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Le 20/10/2017 à 23:52, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Never mind. I tried doing the dak queries and I eventually got more
>>>>> than 500 reverse-depends before I gave up. (Attached)
>>>>
>>>> Funny, I never realized that src:eclipse was basically holding most of
>>>> the Java packages. Maybe this package deserves some of my attention
>>>> after all ;)
>>>
>>> Adrian Bunk suggests removing bnd's Build-Depends on eclipse-jdt and
>>> eclipse-rcp. He thinks that might significantly decrease the number of
>>> affected packages.
>>
>> It appears the package can be built without eclipse-jdt and eclipse-rcp.
>> Works with cowbuilder at least. We probably exclude the eclipse classes
>> in debian/bootstrap.xml anyway. I'm not exactly sure how the BND Eclipse
>> plugin is supposed to work because I see we also symlink various jars
>> into Eclipse specific directories in debian/rules.
>>
>> I believe it would be possible to drop the build-dependencies on
>> eclipse-jdt and eclipse-rcp. We would lose the BND Eclipse plugin but
>> the rest should still continue to work.
> 
> Which Eclipse plugin would we lose?
> 
> Before suggesting to drop the build dependency I did of course try it 
> with debdiff between the built packages (no difference), and read the 
> comment in README.md about the previous Eclipse-specific plugin no 
> longer available upstream (which is why I started thinking the build 
> dependency might just be a leftover).

I did a grep -r "eclipse-jdt" but now it seems those are just settings
files. I have never used the BND Eclipse plugin but I saw that we still
mention it in the package description. Apparently bndtools is the
successor and is maintained in a separate repository now. All in all
that means it should be safe to remove the build-dependencies and
obsolete symlinks in debian/rules.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #172 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

To: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org, Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>, Matt Wittmann <webdev@mattwittmann.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:34:57 -0500

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> wrote:
>> Am 20.10.2017 um 18:43 schrieb Jeremy Bicha:
>>> Are there any objections to me requesting that the ftpmasters remove
>>> swt-gtk and eclipse from Debian Testing so that we can complete the
>>> webkitgtk removal from Testing?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jeremy Bicha
>>
>> Thank you for contacting us. I completely agree with you. Eclipse in its
>> current state should not be a blocker for other packages in testing. I
>> can't promise anything but I will try to get the package in shape again
>> but this process will be quite slow probably, so the request for help is
>> as valid as ever.
>
> Never mind. I tried doing the dak queries and I eventually got more
> than 500 reverse-depends before I gave up. (Attached)
>
> The only other reverse-depends of libswt-webkit-gtk-3-jni in Testing
> now is tuxguitar which was already switched in Unstable to swt4-gtk
> which should work with webkit2gtk.

Have you considered dropping the libswt-webkit-gtk-3-jni dependency
from eclipse-rcp? Then the swt-gtk source package could stop building
libswt-webkit-gtk-3-jni and we could complete the webkitgtk removal
from Debian Testing.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

Message #177 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

Cc: 681726@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:08:10 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 09.11.2017 um 21:34 schrieb Jeremy Bicha:
[...]
> Have you considered dropping the libswt-webkit-gtk-3-jni dependency
> from eclipse-rcp? Then the swt-gtk source package could stop building
> libswt-webkit-gtk-3-jni and we could complete the webkitgtk removal
> from Debian Testing.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeremy Bicha

Hi,

sorry for the delay.

I haven't tested that yet but I believe this will simply make the
package unusable for everyone. I'm not sure what we can do to assist you
in your effort to remove webkitgtk from Debian. Ok, most obviously we
could "just" package the latest Eclipse version but that won't happen
anytime soon.

We should definitely try to avoid this sort of dependency mess in the
future by packaging important libraries like eclipse-rcp in a separate
source package. That would be similar to what we are doing whith
Netbeans and libnb-platform18-java at the moment. It simply ensures that
we can resolve such issues more easily by dropping the hard to maintain
IDE but keeping other important dependencies which don't require that
much effort in theory.

Regards,

Markus

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #182 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

To: Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>, 681726@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:01:07 +0200

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:08:10AM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
>...
> We should definitely try to avoid this sort of dependency mess in the
> future by packaging important libraries like eclipse-rcp in a separate
> source package. That would be similar to what we are doing whith
> Netbeans and libnb-platform18-java at the moment. It simply ensures that
> we can resolve such issues more easily by dropping the hard to maintain
> IDE but keeping other important dependencies which don't require that
> much effort in theory.

I tried to sort out what I could find as required for getting the
ancient eclipse out of testing in [1]:

1. src:bnd
You fixed that already.

2. batik -> maven -> guice -> libspring-java -> aspectj -> eclipse-platform
Is there some good way to break this dependency chain?

3. split libequinox-osgi-java out of src:eclise
Or as a short-term hack, build only libequinox-osgi-java from src:eclipse.

> Regards,
> 
> Markus

cu
Adrian

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=880470#10

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Message #187 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>

To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>, 681726@bugs.debian.org, Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

Cc: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:56:10 +0100

Le 15/11/2017 à 17:01, Adrian Bunk a écrit :

> 2. batik -> maven -> guice -> libspring-java -> aspectj -> eclipse-platform
> Is there some good way to break this dependency chain?

I suspect we build the aspectj eclipse plugin but don't even install it
in the binary package. I'll see if this can be disabled.

Emmanuel Bourg

Message #192 received at 681726@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>

To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>, 681726@bugs.debian.org, Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>

Cc: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#681726: Time to remove eclipse from Testing?

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:58:00 +0100

Le 15/11/2017 à 17:56, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit :

> I suspect we build the aspectj eclipse plugin but don't even install it
> in the binary package. I'll see if this can be disabled.

Long story short, it can't. aspectj deeply depends on eclipse jdt. Also
upgrading to the latest version isn't possible without updating Eclipse.

This is turning into a nightmare, we can neither upgrade nor remove
Eclipse and it's going to block the Java 9 transition :(

Emmanuel Bourg

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.