Thread: RE: [Java-gnome-developer] Re: java autoconf macros
Brought to you by:
afcowie
Menu
▾
▴
java-gnome-developer
|
From: Jeffrey M. <Jef...@Br...> - 2003-12-16 21:11:31
|
> > Anyway, I think a lot of configury changes are needed to > cleanly support > > gcj-only builds, and it's probably not a priority right > now, with the > > gnome-bindings deadline approaching. Configury changes can be made > > without affecting binary or source compatibility. :) > Good point. I think making everyone build the gcj builds will > make them > more likely to try them out too, which has got to be a good thing. I have just discovered that gcj is now a requirement to build java-gnome. I do not believe this is a good thing. This requirement and the requirement of autoconf 2.58 will mean that many developers will not be able to download and build the bindings without the headache of first building the tools. I think gcj build should be optional. If the developer does use this option then we could build the native versions of the jar files as well. What do you think? -Jeff |
|
From: Jeffrey M. <Jef...@Br...> - 2003-12-18 14:21:49
Attachments:
release-0.8.2.md5
|
> We really should make a 0.8 branch in cvs so we can maintain > a gnome 2.2 > version of java-gnome while developing the latest version - > few ppl will > want to install developmental gnome releases just to use java-gnome. > > As the builds seem to be working, we should release 0.8.2 to give a > wider test base and also let people know about our new > schedule. Jeff - > you're the only one with access to the sourceforge file release, so > could you do this please? The releases are on the site. We need to update the website to reflect the latest changes. Once the announcement is made people will go to the site to see info regarding the release and to download. Alberto, what would it take to get a quick update of the site? > (please update cvs first - I've renamed the doc tarballs - > java-gnome-doc-core, etc -- it will make gnome ppl happier) > mkdir tmp > cp java-gnome tmp > ./tmp/java-gnome/build/maketarballs.sh The creation of the doc-core tarballs failed. It is not included in the releases on the site yet. The failure was due to a directory naming problem. > > That should work. > If you send me the md5sums, I'll write an announcement email saying > about gnome bindings release and send it to various announce > lists. Has > anything else changed since 0.8.1? The md2sums are attached to the email. There are several additional items that should be mentioned. This release included initial gconf and libgtkhtml support. Also, I added event handling for the Entry widget as well as fixing the event handling for other widgets that had problems. Also, there were several bug fixes along the way. > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:50:48PM -0500, Jeffrey Morgan wrote: > > I also took a quick look at the libgnomecanvas bindings. It > > appears like we have near complete coverage of this library. > > The only question is "does it work?". Can somebody please take > > a look at these classes (org.gnu.gnome.Canvas*). > To follow the bindings, should this be in a separate tarball then? It probably should be in its' own package but we can deal with that in the next release. > > I am about to look into the gtk bindings to make sure we > > are ready for Dec 22nd. > What do you call ready? Development releases are supposed to be buggy > and incomplete, especially .0 ones. I think we are ok as we > are, as long > as our next release (in 2 weeks) is a lot better. Ok |
|
From: Luca De R. <pie...@li...> - 2003-12-16 21:59:33
|
Il mar, 2003-12-16 alle 22:11, Jeffrey Morgan ha scritto: > > > Anyway, I think a lot of configury changes are needed to > > cleanly support > > > gcj-only builds, and it's probably not a priority right > > now, with the > > > gnome-bindings deadline approaching. Configury changes can be made > > > without affecting binary or source compatibility. :) > > Good point. I think making everyone build the gcj builds will > > make them > > more likely to try them out too, which has got to be a good thing. > > I have just discovered that gcj is now a requirement to build java-gnome. > I do not believe this is a good thing. This requirement and the requirement > of autoconf 2.58 will mean that many developers will not be able to download > and build the bindings without the headache of first building the tools. > I think gcj build should be optional. If the developer does use this > option then we could build the native versions of the jar files as well. > What do you think? - gcj optional, it should build native jars too - use autoconf < 2.58 -- Luca De Rugeriis <pie...@li...> |
|
From: Mark H. <mh...@ca...> - 2003-12-17 08:38:31
|
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 10:58:14PM +0100, Luca De Rugeriis wrote: > > I have just discovered that gcj is now a requirement to build java-gnome. > > I do not believe this is a good thing. This requirement and the requirement > > of autoconf 2.58 will mean that many developers will not be able to download > > and build the bindings without the headache of first building the tools. > > I think gcj build should be optional. If the developer does use this > > option then we could build the native versions of the jar files as well. > > What do you think? > - gcj optional, it should build native jars too I will try to make the changes to allow this. > - use autoconf < 2.58 I'm not sure how to do this. People were reporting problems with autoconf 2.57 -- I'm not sure what they were, or what caused them. My suspicion is that our aclocal.m4 has problems in it - unfortunately I don't know how to change it. This is not such a big problem as it looks. build/maketarballs.sh runs autoconf in the right directories as it builds the tarballs - so tarball users won't need autoconf at all. -- .''`. Mark Howard : :' : `. `' http://www.tildemh.com `- mh...@de... | mh...@ti... | mh...@ca... |
|
From: Luca De R. <pie...@li...> - 2003-12-17 10:45:44
|
Il mer, 2003-12-17 alle 09:38, Mark Howard ha scritto: > I'm not sure how to do this. People were reporting problems with > autoconf 2.57 -- I'm not sure what they were, or what caused them. My > suspicion is that our aclocal.m4 has problems in it - unfortunately I > don't know how to change it. > This is not such a big problem as it looks. build/maketarballs.sh runs > autoconf in the right directories as it builds the tarballs - so tarball > users won't need autoconf at all. Good point, users will be able to get a source tree with already generated cofigure scripts. I have to say that the source doesn't compile correctly: out of the box, I've ended up with only ligtk-java, ligtkvte-java, because of many unresolved symbols in the Gnome module, ad in the Glade module (as a consequence, either gconf or gtkhtml were not built). However, with such a slow hardware, I have't tracked the compilation process carefully (very long compile time). So I'll let you know if I still have problem on the net days, when hopefully I could build it on a faster pc. -- Luca De Rugeriis <pie...@li...> |
|
From: Mark H. <mh...@ca...> - 2003-12-17 12:50:44
|
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:44:28AM +0100, Luca De Rugeriis wrote: > I have to say that the source doesn't compile correctly: out of the box, > I've ended up with only ligtk-java, ligtkvte-java, because of many > unresolved symbols in the Gnome module, ad in the Glade module (as a > consequence, either gconf or gtkhtml were not built). Have you compiled java-gnome on that machine before? it sounds like you're missing some of the gnome-dev libraries. -- .''`. Mark Howard : :' : `. `' http://www.tildemh.com `- mh...@de... | mh...@ti... | mh...@ca... |
|
From: Luca De R. <pie...@li...> - 2003-12-17 14:50:23
|
Il mer, 2003-12-17 alle 13:50, Mark Howard ha scritto:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:44:28AM +0100, Luca De Rugeriis wrote:
> > I have to say that the source doesn't compile correctly: out of the b=
ox,
> > I've ended up with only ligtk-java, ligtkvte-java, because of many
> > unresolved symbols in the Gnome module, ad in the Glade module (as a
> > consequence, either gconf or gtkhtml were not built).
> Have you compiled java-gnome on that machine before? it sounds like
> you're missing some of the gnome-dev libraries.
I'm sorry to say that, even if I have my hand on the usual pc where I've
always compiled java-gnome, the error still remains:=C3=B9
gcc -g -O2 -fPIC -shared -o ../lib/libgnomejava0.8.so.0.8.2 \
jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_AppBar.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_App.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasBpath.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_Canvas.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasClipgroup.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasEllipse.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasGroup.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasItem.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasLine.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasPathDef.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasPixbuf.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasPoints.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasPolygon.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasRE.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasRect.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasRichText.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasShape.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasText.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_CanvasWidget.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_Client.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_ClientFlags.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_ClientState.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_ColorPicker.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_Config.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_DateEdit.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_DateEditFlags.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_DialogType.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_Druid.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_DruidPage.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_DruidPageEdge.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_DruidPageStandard.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_EdgePosition.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_Entry.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_FileDomain.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_FileEntry.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_FontPicker.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_FontPickerMode.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_GConf.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_Gnome.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_Help.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_HelpError.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_HRef.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_IconEntry.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_IconList.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_IconListMode.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_IconSelection.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_IconTextItem.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_InteractStyle.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_ModuleInfo.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_PixmapEntry.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_PopupMenu.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_PreferencesType.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_Program.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_RestartStyle.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_SaveStyle.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_Scores.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_Sound.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_StockIcons.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_UIBuilderData.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_UIInfo.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_UIInfoConfigurableTypes.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_UIInfoType.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_UIPixmapType.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_Url.o jni/org_gnu_gnome_Util.o
jni/org_gnu_gnome_WindowIcon.o \
-g -O2 -fPIC -I /home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include -I
/home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include/linux -Xlinker --no-undefined
jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.o(.text+0x12): In function
`Java_org_gnu_gnome_About_gnome_1about_1get_1type':
jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.c:40: undefined reference to
`gnome_about_get_type'
and a list of a lot of other undefined references follows.
Same thing for Glade, GConf and Gtkhtml (but the jar files are present)
No problems for libgtk and libvte.
As you can see the C source is compiled fine the problem arises during
linking phase.=20
libgnome and libgnomeui 2.2.0, libglade 2.0.1
Has anyone got this problem too? Any pointer will be *very* appreciated.
--=20
Luca De Rugeriis <pie...@li...>
|
|
From: Mark H. <mh...@ca...> - 2003-12-17 15:53:22
|
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Luca De Rugeriis wrote:
> -g -O2 -fPIC -I /home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include -I
> /home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include/linux -Xlinker --no-undefined
You should have a lot more includes than that.
> jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.o(.text+0x12): In function
> `Java_org_gnu_gnome_About_gnome_1about_1get_1type':
> jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.c:40: undefined reference to
> `gnome_about_get_type'
Does gtk lib compile ok?
For gtk, the makefile includes:
$(CFLAGS) $(GTK_LIBS) $(JAVA_INCLUDES)
For gnome, the makefile includes:
-L@JG_GTK_LIB_PATH@ -lgtkjava${apiversion} \
$(OBJECTS) \
$(CFLAGS) $(GNOME_LIBS) $(JAVA_INCLUDES)
Only suggestion I have is to cvs up, ./genblah, autoconf ./configure
again.
Are you sure you have gnome devel libs installed, including the files
/usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgnome-2.0.pc
/usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgnomeui-2.0.pc
?
--
.''`. Mark Howard
: :' :
`. `' http://www.tildemh.com
`- mh...@de... | mh...@ti... | mh...@ca...
|
|
From: Luca De R. <pie...@li...> - 2003-12-17 23:41:15
|
Il mer, 2003-12-17 alle 16:53, Mark Howard ha scritto:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Luca De Rugeriis wrote:
> > -g -O2 -fPIC -I /home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include -I
> > /home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include/linux -Xlinker --no-undefined
> You should have a lot more includes than that.
>
> > jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.o(.text+0x12): In function
> > `Java_org_gnu_gnome_About_gnome_1about_1get_1type':
> > jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.c:40: undefined reference to
> > `gnome_about_get_type'
>
> Does gtk lib compile ok?
>
> For gtk, the makefile includes:
> $(CFLAGS) $(GTK_LIBS) $(JAVA_INCLUDES)
>
> For gnome, the makefile includes:
> -L@JG_GTK_LIB_PATH@ -lgtkjava${apiversion} \
> $(OBJECTS) \
> $(CFLAGS) $(GNOME_LIBS) $(JAVA_INCLUDES)
>
> Only suggestion I have is to cvs up, ./genblah, autoconf ./configure
> again.
>
> Are you sure you have gnome devel libs installed, including the files
> /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgnome-2.0.pc
> /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgnomeui-2.0.pc
Yes I have them, (of course :)), I haven't touched this machine where
Java-Gnome always compiled fine, only I've updated autoconf.
...
updating cvs and vte packages solves the problem ;). Only GConf libs
haven't been built, it's the same include problem, it seems that
configure doesn't pass the correct values for me:
while it is checking GNOME_CFLAGS, I've noticed that the include flag
for gconf reads -I/usr/include/gconf/2 while should read
-I/usr/include/gconf-2
--
Luca De Rugeriis <pie...@li...>
|
|
From: Luca De R. <pie...@li...> - 2003-12-17 23:44:46
|
Il gio, 2003-12-18 alle 00:40, Luca De Rugeriis ha scritto:
> Il mer, 2003-12-17 alle 16:53, Mark Howard ha scritto:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Luca De Rugeriis wrote:
> > > -g -O2 -fPIC -I /home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include -I
> > > /home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include/linux -Xlinker --no-undefined
> > You should have a lot more includes than that.
> >
> > > jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.o(.text+0x12): In function
> > > `Java_org_gnu_gnome_About_gnome_1about_1get_1type':
> > > jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.c:40: undefined reference to
> > > `gnome_about_get_type'
> >
> > Does gtk lib compile ok?
> >
> > For gtk, the makefile includes:
> > $(CFLAGS) $(GTK_LIBS) $(JAVA_INCLUDES)
> >
> > For gnome, the makefile includes:
> > -L@JG_GTK_LIB_PATH@ -lgtkjava${apiversion} \
> > $(OBJECTS) \
> > $(CFLAGS) $(GNOME_LIBS) $(JAVA_INCLUDES)
> >
> > Only suggestion I have is to cvs up, ./genblah, autoconf ./configure
> > again.
> >
> > Are you sure you have gnome devel libs installed, including the files
> > /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgnome-2.0.pc
> > /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgnomeui-2.0.pc
> Yes I have them, (of course :)), I haven't touched this machine where
> Java-Gnome always compiled fine, only I've updated autoconf.
> ...
> updating cvs and vte packages solves the problem ;). Only GConf libs
> haven't been built, it's the same include problem, it seems that
> configure doesn't pass the correct values for me:
> while it is checking GNOME_CFLAGS, I've noticed that the include flag
> for gconf reads -I/usr/include/gconf/2 while should read
> -I/usr/include/gconf-2
No it's pkg-config that prints these cflags, it's to distinguish between
gconf-1 & 2 so I guess they're correct.
--
Luca De Rugeriis <pie...@li...>
|
|
From: Jeffrey M. <ku...@zo...> - 2003-12-18 01:21:30
|
I am building the jars and shared objects without problems.
I am just failing while building a few of the docs (can't
locate the docbook scripts and has a problem creating
javadocs). I am about to review and update the libgnome
and libgnomeui components.
There are 17 classes from the libgnome-canvas library in
the gnome package. I will be checking these to see what
level of coverage we have. I am not sure if these classes
work properly. Has anybody tried using them?
-Jeff
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 18:43, Luca De Rugeriis wrote:
> Il gio, 2003-12-18 alle 00:40, Luca De Rugeriis ha scritto:
> > Il mer, 2003-12-17 alle 16:53, Mark Howard ha scritto:
> > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Luca De Rugeriis wrote:
> > > > -g -O2 -fPIC -I /home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include -I
> > > > /home/mari/j2sdk_nb/j2sdk1.4.2/include/linux -Xlinker --no-undefined
> > > You should have a lot more includes than that.
> > >
> > > > jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.o(.text+0x12): In function
> > > > `Java_org_gnu_gnome_About_gnome_1about_1get_1type':
> > > > jni/org_gnu_gnome_About.c:40: undefined reference to
> > > > `gnome_about_get_type'
> > >
> > > Does gtk lib compile ok?
> > >
> > > For gtk, the makefile includes:
> > > $(CFLAGS) $(GTK_LIBS) $(JAVA_INCLUDES)
> > >
> > > For gnome, the makefile includes:
> > > -L@JG_GTK_LIB_PATH@ -lgtkjava${apiversion} \
> > > $(OBJECTS) \
> > > $(CFLAGS) $(GNOME_LIBS) $(JAVA_INCLUDES)
> > >
> > > Only suggestion I have is to cvs up, ./genblah, autoconf ./configure
> > > again.
> > >
> > > Are you sure you have gnome devel libs installed, including the files
> > > /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgnome-2.0.pc
> > > /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgnomeui-2.0.pc
> > Yes I have them, (of course :)), I haven't touched this machine where
> > Java-Gnome always compiled fine, only I've updated autoconf.
> > ...
> > updating cvs and vte packages solves the problem ;). Only GConf libs
> > haven't been built, it's the same include problem, it seems that
> > configure doesn't pass the correct values for me:
> > while it is checking GNOME_CFLAGS, I've noticed that the include flag
> > for gconf reads -I/usr/include/gconf/2 while should read
> > -I/usr/include/gconf-2
> No it's pkg-config that prints these cflags, it's to distinguish between
> gconf-1 & 2 so I guess they're correct.
|
|
From: Jeffrey M. <ku...@zo...> - 2003-12-18 02:56:49
|
After reviewing the libgnomeui bindings I discovered that we only needed to add one widget; PasswordDialog. I just wrote the jni layer. Perhaps somebody can write the public interface for this new class. It is in cvs. I also took a quick look at the libgnomecanvas bindings. It appears like we have near complete coverage of this library. The only question is "does it work?". Can somebody please take a look at these classes (org.gnu.gnome.Canvas*). I am about to look into the gtk bindings to make sure we are ready for Dec 22nd. -Jeff On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 20:15, Jeffrey Morgan wrote: > I am building the jars and shared objects without problems. > I am just failing while building a few of the docs (can't > locate the docbook scripts and has a problem creating > javadocs). I am about to review and update the libgnome > and libgnomeui components. > > There are 17 classes from the libgnome-canvas library in > the gnome package. I will be checking these to see what > level of coverage we have. I am not sure if these classes > work properly. Has anybody tried using them? |
|
From: Mark H. <mh...@ca...> - 2003-12-18 09:19:32
|
We really should make a 0.8 branch in cvs so we can maintain a gnome 2.2 version of java-gnome while developing the latest version - few ppl will want to install developmental gnome releases just to use java-gnome. As the builds seem to be working, we should release 0.8.2 to give a wider test base and also let people know about our new schedule. Jeff - you're the only one with access to the sourceforge file release, so could you do this please? (please update cvs first - I've renamed the doc tarballs - java-gnome-doc-core, etc -- it will make gnome ppl happier) mkdir tmp cp java-gnome tmp ./tmp/java-gnome/build/maketarballs.sh That should work. If you send me the md5sums, I'll write an announcement email saying about gnome bindings release and send it to various announce lists. Has anything else changed since 0.8.1? On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:50:48PM -0500, Jeffrey Morgan wrote: > I also took a quick look at the libgnomecanvas bindings. It > appears like we have near complete coverage of this library. > The only question is "does it work?". Can somebody please take > a look at these classes (org.gnu.gnome.Canvas*). To follow the bindings, should this be in a separate tarball then? > I am about to look into the gtk bindings to make sure we > are ready for Dec 22nd. What do you call ready? Development releases are supposed to be buggy and incomplete, especially .0 ones. I think we are ok as we are, as long as our next release (in 2 weeks) is a lot better. -- .''`. Mark Howard : :' : `. `' http://www.tildemh.com `- mh...@de... | mh...@ti... | mh...@ca... |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X