[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Azureus

[Eric Belanger]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Daenyth Blank wrote:

> 2008/6/20 Ond?ej Ku?era <ondrej.kucera at centrum.cz>:
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:12:41 -0500
>> Simo Leone <simo at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 01:48:58PM +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
>>>> I could update it again. The reason for patching it during froscon
>>>> was that upstream azureus doesn't work with GNU java.
>>>>
>>> Why do we care? What's wrong with depending on Sun's java package?
>>>
>>>> Another thing was that
>>>> the jarfile contains a lot of Windows and Mac OS X related things,
>>>> the update manager doesn't work happily together with pacman
>>>> packages and the upstream distribution contains either outdated
>>>> copies of libraries where we have packages for, or just references
>>>> to outdated copies that are incompatible with our installed
>>>> versions.
>>>>
>>> Now some of that can be a problem.
>>>
>>>> I had a look at the source, I can reduce some patches, as most are
>>>> not needed anymore. Back then, I wrote two patches to remove some
>>>> com.sun.* usage, they don't apply anymore and I have to check if
>>>> they're still needed and if so, rewrite them.
>>>>
>>> See first response.
>>>
>>>> Another thing I stumbled on were the dependencies:
>>>>> =dev-java/bcprov-1.35:0
>>>>> =dev-java/commons-cli-1.0:1
>>>>> =dev-java/log4j-1.2.8:0
>>>>> =dev-java/swt-3.4_pre6-r1:3.4
>>>>
>>>> That's what gentoo lists as dependencies (there's no clear
>>>> reference of dependencies in the upstream source at all... just
>>>> compile errors with weird missing references when you don't have
>>>> these installed).
>>>>
>>>> -bcprov is packaged
>>>> -commons-cli isn't
>>>> -neither is log4j
>>>> -swt is at 3.3.x
>>>>
>>>> Azureus 3.0.5.0 needs swt 3.4 development version (3.4M6 is
>>>> current). If we don't want to update swt to the development
>>>> version, we're tied to the much older 3.0.4.2 release, which needs
>>>> some additional patches to compile from source.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Augh. Maybe we should go back to using the ones included with the
>>> jarfile, since I think the java policy we've got is basically...
>>> "split it if you can, don't bother if it's a hassle". This is
>>> starting to sound like a hassle to me.
>>>
>>> -S
>>
>> I'll open this again... I think the main question now is - how many
>> Archers are actually interested in Azureus? I mean if I'm the only one
>> who uses it (or there's only a few of us), is there any reason for it
>> to be in [extra] (where it is unmaintained anyway), shouldn't it be
>> simple moved to unsupported (where someone would or wouldn't pick it
>> up)? Is there any way to find out how popular a package in [extra] is
>> (something like votes in AUR)?
>>
>> Anyway I created a new package in AUR, vuze (which is the new name of
>> Azureus, I didn't even know that) -
>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=17932. It simply downloads the
>> latest binary version and puts it to /opt. It seems to work OK - at
>> least it starts and is able to start downloading a torrent of
>> ArchLinux's ISO. :-) The PKGBUILD is very basic for now, I just wanted
>> to know if anyone is actually interested at all (if you are, please
>> leave a comment and/or vote). It has the following limitations:
>> (1) Right now, only x86_64 is supported, some juggling similar to what
>> is done in PKGBUILD for Opera will be needed.
>> (2) Depends on jre. Perhaps it would be more correct to depend on
>> java-runtime but I don't have time to test it under java-gcj-compat.
>> (3) Perhaps it should provide azureus and conflict with azureus. It
>> doesn't have any conflicting files with the azureus package though. On
>> the other hand, using both might mess with $HOME/.azureus...
>>
>> Any comments? I really don't think that there should be a package in
>> core/extra/community unmaintained for such a long time.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Ond?ej Ku?era
>>
>>
>
> Personally, due to the home clash, I would suggest that it conflict.
> According to PKGBUILD man page, it should also use replace=, because
> there's been a change in upstream naming.
>
> I'm hardly official, but it's been my experience that noone (In
> #archlinux) uses Azureus anyway, so I'd second a move out of extra.
>
>

We are currently in the process of adding new devs. If none of them wants 
to maintain azureus, then it'll be moved to unsupported.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.