Debian Bug report logs - #903428
javadocs generated by javahelper include jquery

Full log

Message #58 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at 903428) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Jul 2018 05:00:21 +0000
From [email protected] Tue Jul 17 05:00:21 2018
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2015-04-28) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.2 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,FROMDEVELOPER,
	HAS_BUG_NUMBER,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MURPHY_DRUGS_REL8,PGPSIGNATURE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 12; hammy, 150; neutral, 248; spammy,
	0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--H*c:pgp-sha512, 0.000-+--unmaintained,
	0.000-+--H*F:U*tmancill, 0.000-+--H*c:pgp-signature, 0.000-+--H*c:protocol
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236])
	by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1ffI60-0005RT-SV
	for [email protected]; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 05:00:21 +0000
Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id i26-v6so16004282pfo.12
        for <[email protected]>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 22:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=A88o6LMLgIvNvF0Ozkn/xf3H18qAEAQUM4SXYhUEcYs=;
        b=txhb/hH9Bus8UAmD9nqIQWHfq8kxBR5bM4M+pyaiSNHQnirmAfBZBqDkExeAxwzyPl
         SzXiQb+QVwO33HHK9acEnQgZPLMvrzk+MEhCGMJ4BPVoshaimif6qMZkttLhTZCRSDaB
         SJPfKGKyoIC5wL0n8yGi3hBcTwP/0QGuRYnIKgnK0G+q2czgpOqDwC3F85Vf7hZGuyn3
         zH8IV3uAjdQdKU9Pc/WtQCgdtKsFkWBoWbyTMKeYWSdtrm4RBJ/y/NBjxFayJ7qa4Z9h
         ioe8nBnbrW9IIMzW4WTAWoe4g4GoB92et80ojhJXr1gj7lAI6HdtgVI5fHJsfiU++kGE
         J0jA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id
         :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=A88o6LMLgIvNvF0Ozkn/xf3H18qAEAQUM4SXYhUEcYs=;
        b=g0+3laVuqwNox3XYyQwwXQaun5vGjIBTPJDAR9E+EX+Wi56GxynS3nX82nfcToIgGD
         ynUIbxE3iMrjwdqFJYF2C2VEM4vRFqZmWzbjRErKNQTdbh0V1VZq2KytczD0hJvjfrft
         ShyYfPPFb+ll5/VcoxAlLANKcq5tAQOIVmOaZRjo19KzO5zHgPMehvmf2a1G3xw7PhjZ
         CTsaKHiYk+qzFqN1KKVvCnKC5jrtbiy+iYGFpWuAz+7T2p8MSv4msufvTT+ZppzMepzk
         +hiVEnEXOdIAlkN5OWSlzWtve18i1sYFvHGxM6mDSf6Mrr3MPWty6iRX3fiKYdxB5+nA
         sP/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlErC1x+eBdQXUu8HaVntSRUli8THnFaqGJ+ktV+XP4tXQQP/Fxt
	NGagWppU2XVZRvpy4nhotVY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcFTP835UIDiwK4QHVLbjT3gyyILyLdgcc5LIs8vcaK5InR67SktzCLGehrZVUR5vTzcf6qew==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:e106:: with SMTP id q6-v6mr105912pfh.75.1531803619364;
        Mon, 16 Jul 2018 22:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lark (c-71-63-172-48.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [71.63.172.48])
        by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q140-v6sm91782pgq.11.2018.07.16.22.00.17
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256);
        Mon, 16 Jul 2018 22:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: tony mancill <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 22:00:15 -0700
From: tony mancill <[email protected]>
To: Markus Koschany <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bug#903428: javadocs generated by javahelper include jquery
Message-ID: <20180717050015.GB2211@lark>
References: <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <153116570013.52934.7173586082571911770.reportbug@thk1.roam.corp.google.com>
 <[email protected]>
 <153116570013.52934.7173586082571911770.reportbug@thk1.roam.corp.google.com>
 <20180710032231.GA12743@lark>
 <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)

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

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:35:21PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Hi tony,
> 
> Am 10.07.2018 um 05:22 schrieb tony mancill:
> [...]
> > I'm in favor of dropping the -java-doc packages completely and instead
> > using our time and effort to improve the state of our runtime libraries,
> > toolchain and application packages.  (It would be a different story if
> > we were developing a distribution for Java developers who don't have
> > ready access to other sources of documentation, but I have a hard time
> > imagining that our users would prefer javadocs over functioning and
> > secure libraries.)
> > 
> >> Well, now we have to convince doku to implement this solution, or at
> >> least to accept it, without closing the bug report again. Volunteers?
> > 
> > Hmm... I choose to believe that the bug (we're talking about [1],
> > right?) was mass-closed along with everything else that was open against
> > src:openjdk-9.  It seems like a reasonable and very "Debian" approach to
> > avoid embedding an available system library.  If we really want javadoc,
> > we could resubmit (preferably with a patch).
> 
> Yes, I was talking about #883981. There are two main issues with javadoc
> at the moment. Firstly the syntax checker has been much more strict
> since OpenJDK 8 and we currently work around a couple of problems by
> simply ignoring javadoc errors, otherwise a lot more packages would be
> RC buggy (FTBFS). Maybe this option will even go away in the future and
> this would leave us with the following choice; either fix the underlying
> error or drop the -doc package. Since we ship a lot of older or even
> unmaintained software, which is still somehow useful to us though, I can
> imagine that for some people our corresponding -doc packages are still a
> good read because there is no equivalent source on the Internet (anymore).
> 
> Sure, that's not the sole reason why we should keep javadoc. My main
> argument is that we would risk to overlook javadoc related issues in our
> tool chain, if we dropped it completely. There should be at least a way
> for people to create their own javadoc packages, preferably without too
> much hassle. As long as that works, we could get over the rest. But
> everything else is a regression.
> 
> And secondly then there is this jquery issue. I don't even know why they
> need Javascript while HTML5 could do probably the same or even a better
> job. Anyway we could fix this at the packaging level by replacing the
> embedded copy with symlinks. There is one issue that remains: Should
> -doc packages depend on jquery as well? There is a chance that the JRE
> (which pulls in the jquery dependency) is not installed on the system.
> 
> So in my opinion it's not a choice between two options, javadoc yes or
> no because at least for the jquery part this should be manageable.
> However the first step is to acknowledge a problem but if bugs get
> closed and everyone is more in favor of dropping javadoc completely,
> then I also become rather "Meh".
 
Hi Markus,

Fair enough.  I can see the value in providing javadoc (or at least a
way to build the javadoc) for older versions of libraries. 

I think Martin Quinson's suggestion of "shim" jquery package has some
merit.  It means that we would have to touch every -java-doc package -
475 of them, by my current count - but I'm not sure that can be avoided
unless we take the path of patching openjdk-11 to use the Debian system
library.

And finally, although I'm still biased towards working on better runtime
support (to wit, libjide-oss-java is currently FTBFS, so the lintian
jquery warning seems less important than that), I don't think we should
ignore the problem and don't want anyone to feel unnecessarily "meh"
about it either... :)

Other ideas?

Cheers,
tony

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

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.