Bug#764630: RFS: javatools 0.48 [RC]

[tony mancill]

On 12/29/2014 02:15 PM, Markus Koschany wrote:
> On Sun, 21. Dec 09:57 tony mancill <tmancill at debian.org> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2014 12:06 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Markus Koschany <apo at gambaru.de> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Actually what was the reasoning behind the choice to use a custom shell
>>>> script like jarwrapper instead of jexec to register executable jars with
>>>> binfmt-misc? This question also came up in the bug report.
>>>
>>> Here is my guess:
>>> `jexec` only works with openjdk installed. At one point debian had
>>> multiple java implementation (sun, kaffe...). These days only two
>>> really remains, so maybe an easier solution would be to have a
>>> `gcj-exec` provided by `gcj-jdk` to mimic openjdk package. Which means
>>> it would be much easier to handle the LD_LIBRARY_PATH issue within the
>>> `gcj-exec` executable.
>>>
>>> jarwrapper is only really needed with a custom jre installation...
>>
>> That sounds reasonable to me, although it can be hard in practice to
>> keep things functional for users running non-Debian JRE packages.  Which
>> is not to say that we shouldn't generally discourage jarwrapper...
> 
> I think before we create another solution like gcj-exec, it is easier to
> maintain the current implementation of jarwrapper. I agree that gcj's
> handling of LD_LIBRARY_PATH and Multiarch could be improved but in my
> opinion there are other aspects about gcj which deserve even more
> attention. Most modern Java applications just don't work with it.
> 
> I suggest to upload the fix for #764630 now. I just saw tony's email
> from the 21th. The current state on master is final. I haven't planned
> any further changes to jarwrapper. Please go ahead.

Uploaded to unstable.  Markus, would you be willing to file the unblock
request for this bug?  Attached are the debdiffs for the upload I
performed.  As the author of this change, you're in the best position to
discuss specifics with the Release Team if there are any questions.

If you'd rather not, please let me know and I'll do it.  I think we want
this change for jessie, if that's still possible.

Thank you,
tony




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: javatools_0.47_to_0.48_dsc.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 3317 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20141230/effcb108/attachment-0002.diff>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: javatools_0.47_to_0.48_changes.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20141230/effcb108/attachment-0003.diff>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20141230/effcb108/attachment-0001.sig>