[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rpms/java-1.6.0-openjdk/F-9 java-1.6.0-openjdk-sparc-ptracefix.patch, NONE, 1.1 java-1.6.0-openjdk-sparc-trapsfix.patch, NONE, 1.1 java-1.6.0-openjdk-sparc64-INSTALL_ARCH_DIR.patch, NONE, 1.1 java-1.6.0-openjdk-sparc64-linux.patch, NONE, 1.1 java-1.6.0-openjdk.spec, 1.46, 1.47



Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Sunday 08 June 2008, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
Hi Tom,

Tom Callaway wrote:
Author: spot

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/java-1.6.0-openjdk/F-9
In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv8037

Modified Files:
	java-1.6.0-openjdk.spec
Added Files:
	java-1.6.0-openjdk-sparc-ptracefix.patch
	java-1.6.0-openjdk-sparc-trapsfix.patch
	java-1.6.0-openjdk-sparc64-INSTALL_ARCH_DIR.patch
	java-1.6.0-openjdk-sparc64-linux.patch
Log Message:
enable sparc/sparc64 builds
Please submit significant patches like this to Lillian and I for approval
before committing them, along with an explanation.  I'd prefer to make this
change in Rawhide unless there's a compelling need for it in Fedora 9.

This isn't the first time a cvsextras member has committed a non-trivial
patch to the OpenJDK packages without asking.  This makes me second-guess
my decision to facilitate trivial patches by allowing cvsextras members
commit access. Maybe I misinterpreted the spirit of the "cvsextras group
members can commit" flag.  I thought it was designed for checkin
convenience, but that non-trivial patches were still commit-after-approval.
 If not, I'll just uncheck the flag and manually commit OpenJDK patches
after I've approved them.

Tom

Tom, Im assuming you are talking about my commit https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-commits/2008-April/msg02319.html as the other cvsextras person to have touched java-1.6.0-openjdk package. I looked though the list archives and other than commits by lillian, lkundrak and yourself its the only other commit since the package was created.

Actually I was referring to lkundrak's merge of EPEL-specific changes to the Fedora packages which we've since reverted. I considered the SPARC ifarch changes trivial and they were applied to Rawhide. The latest change is more significant.

I worked with lillian as i was developing the changes to add support to the spec file to build using the zero engine it was done as part of Secondary Architectures as defined http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures This commit is part of the same effort. Fully integrating the asm that sun released to enable java to work natively on sparc architectures. These patches need to head upstream. I planned to work with Lillian this week to ensure that they do. We can now build openjdk for 32 and 64 bit sparc linux. previously the patches that went upstream only allowed 32 bit to be built. We are still getting F-9 completely built so we need these patches commited to F-9 so we can build the latest java-1.5.0-gcj since it uses the javadoc from openjdk to build the documentation which in turn will let us build the rest of the java applications.

OK. At least for patches against released branches (and hopefully for all significant patches) I would appreciate if people would ask for approval from Lillian and I before committing. In most cases I like to limit churn on stable branches to security fixes so that we don't risk breaking something in an update.

This patch is fine to stay committed, but please do not start a package build yet. We're in the middle of testing java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-0.15.b09.fc9 from dist-f9-updates-candidate extensively for an update release and we don't want to restart the testing.

Note: I do appreciate the SPARC efforts, it's just important that lines of communication (other than CVS commit messages) stay open.

Tom


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]