Re: [PATCH] Various icedtea6 patches

[Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>]

Ludovic Courtès writes:

>> From 9c9ef4fde4003a3bc9af73462552edde5d46c909 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>
>> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:05:48 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH 3/5] gnu: icedtea6: patch patches in separate build phase.
>>
>> * gnu/packages/java.scm (icedtea6)[arguments]: patch patches in a separate
>>   build phase `patch-patches' instead of `patch-paths'.
>
> Is it really patches that are being patched?  Not obvious from a quick
> look.

Yes, it is patches being patched.  OpenJDK comes with patches and some
of them have to be patched (rather than the sources), because they are
applied during the build phase, not at a point at which we could
interject another phase.

In the diff it's not very clear, but looking at the resulting phase
after applying the patch you can see that there are only two substitute
expressions for the following files, all patches:

           "patches/jtreg-jrunscript.patch"
           "patches/hotspot/hs23/drop_unlicensed_test.patch"
           "patches/openjdk/6799141-split_out_versions.patch"

> Anyway, maybe “Move patching from ‘patch-paths’ to new ‘patch-patches’
> phase.”

Or maybe

  "Move patching of patches from ‘patch-paths’ to new ‘patch-patches’
   phase.",

because it's not actually patching of sources but patching of patches?

>> From 7b4a5b8861de9f8f940d8bf60e225fcafbbb2b1c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>
>> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:03:44 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH 4/5] gnu: icedtea6: rename build phase `set-paths'
>>
>> * gnu/packages/java.scm (icedtea6)[arguments]: Avoid overriding standard
>>   `set-paths' phase by renaming new phase to `set-additional-paths'.
>
> Just “Rename ‘set-paths’ phase to ‘set-additional-paths’.”
>
> However the removal of CC and LD_LIBRARY_PATH should be made a separate
> patch.

Okay.

~~ Ricardo