Re: gant and groovy ebuild trials and tribulations (long)

On Thursday 30 August 2007 12:49:37 am Jean-Noël Rivasseau wrote:
> Hello, and thanks for all this work.
>
> First, I should suggest you come over to the Gentoo Java IRC channel
> where you can ask for help and discuss things. I was myself going more
> or less the same route than you yesterday, so we could have talked.
>

Ok - I'll definitely be sure to do visit #gentoo-java in the future.

I think that even though I was spinning my wheels for most of that effort - 
it was still a good bit of immersion and a crash course to cut my teeth on;
however I'll definitely be sure to do visit #gentoo-java in the future and
to generally be more communicative. I hope to be able to come on board the
team after I get a bit more experience.


> A few remarks:
>
> * I looked briefly at the Groovy startGroovy stuff, and I don't
> believe it is necessary in Gentoo. Most of what this script does is
> trying to guess the underlying platform (Cygwin, Windows, Mac etc...)
> and setting up platform dependent stuff. I don't believe we need that
> in Gentoo as we have our own management for such things.
>

You're totally right - my only thought, though, was that it appears to
maybe be a kindof standard script that other random/external/non-ebuild
packages/etc might sometimes expect to be available.


> I don't have at all that groovy-start.jar file you are talking about,
> but for me it works fine without.
>
> Actually a simple bash script in one line:
>
> CLASSPATH=`java-config -dp groovy-1,gant` java
> org.codehaus.groovy.tools.GroovyStarter --main gant.Gant
>

Definitely - maybe I was trying a bit _too_ hard in getting a gjl-based 
runner working! <grin>


> works perfectly well for me. 
>

Yup - I had been doing basically the same thing before I got all caught up
in the shenanigans described in my email. 


> This would be better than having to
> modify manually the package.env files of Groovy and Gant packages,
> which I believe we don't want to do (Betelgeuse can correct me there).
>

Ah, ok - I hadn't considered that there might be possible consequences
with modifying the package.env's.


> I'll see if I can still get a launcher written correctly, but if I
> can't I'll just use the simple line above, as discussed with
> Betelgeuse yesterday.
>

I would like to see a correctly written launcher for this so that I can
better see where I went wrong while trying to produce one on my own.

Thanks for the remarks - I look forward to coming up to speed so I can
help out!


Cheers,

Corey



-- 
[email protected] mailing list