asm3 [Was: Jpackage: follow or lead?]

[Fernando Nasser]

Jerry, please try this:

http://fnasser.fedorapeople.org/objectweb-asm-3.0-1jpp.src.rpm

Fernando Nasser wrote:
> Is objectweb-asm OK for the Asm 3.0 package?  An old request from some 
> people I know from the ObjectWeb consortium.
> 
> Regards,
> Fernando
> 
> Fernando Nasser wrote:
>> Jerry James wrote:
>>> Thanks for the quick reply, Fernando.
>>>
>>> On 8/22/07, Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Jerry,
>>>>
>>>> Jerry James wrote:
>>>>> Whether those changes affect any particular application will require
>>>>> examining that application, of course.  In my case, I want to get
>>>>> findbugs [1] into Fedora, but current findbugs uses ASM 3.0, hence
>>>>> this thread.  Permaine is working on getting the current jpackage.org
>>>>> asm2 package into Fedora, but there doesn't seem to be anyone working
>>>>> on ASM 3.0.
>>>>>
>>>> I think it is just because nobody asked for it I guess...  findbugs 
>>>> uses
>>>> bcel in the JPP build.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, why not using bcel?
>>>
>>> The JPP build of findbugs is at version 0.9.6, before ASM support was
>>> added.  The current version is 1.2.1.  Building a current findbugs
>>> successfully will require one of the following:
>>>
>>> (1) Use the ASM jars that come with findbugs to build and either:
>>>     (a) Install the ASM jars as part of the findbugs package until 
>>> somebody
>>>         complains; or
>>>     (b) Don't install the ASM jars and somehow advertise that ASM 
>>> support
>>>         doesn't work so you'd better use BCEL
>>> (2) Patch findbugs to rip out all references to ASM.
>>> (3) Get ASM 3.0 into Fedora first.
>>>
>>> I think that (3) is the best option.
>>>
>>
>> I totally agree.  Let me start looking into the asm3 package.  I have 
>> a release on Friday so this is not an easy week, but I will do my best.
>>
>> I am also interested in a newer findbugs for JPP 5.0 as well, and may 
>> ask you for some help with that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Fernando
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Yes.  My worry is that with the current naming scheme, we will find
>>>>> ourselves making asm3 packages now, asm4 packages next year, asm5
>>>>> packages after that, etc.  I would think it would be better to have an
>>>>> asm-3.0 package now, and compat-asm-2.x versions if needed.  However,
>>>>> that runs contrary to the jpackage naming scheme.
>>>>>
>>>> It wil all depend on upstream projects upgrading from asm 1.x and 2.x I
>>>> guess, of some of us patching them to use the newer version instead.
>>>>
>>>> I'd still say we add an asm3 to JPP and import it in here.
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>>> Let me see if I can build asm3
>>>>
>>>> But I stil wonder why not use bcel, which we already have?
>>>
>>> Answered above.
>>>
>>>> BTW, have you looked at the findbugs package in JPP 5.0?
>>>
>>> Likewise.  Thanks,
>>
>> -- 
>> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
>> Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
>>
> 
> -- 
> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
> Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
>