From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Various icedtea6 patches
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:05:00 +0100
Message-ID: <idjtwxhcf43.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
References: <idjsid3u5hh.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net>
	<87wq2d5p9t.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45929)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Ricardo.Wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>) id 1YYa8l-0003Ma-Eg
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:05:40 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Ricardo.Wurmus@mdc-berlin.de>) id 1YYa8f-0005HO-9C
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:05:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87wq2d5p9t.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>


Ludovic Court=C3=A8s 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 ph=
ase.
>>
>> * gnu/packages/java.scm (icedtea6)[arguments]: patch patches in a sepa=
rate
>>   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 =E2=80=9CMove patching from =E2=80=98patch-paths=E2=80=99=
 to new =E2=80=98patch-patches=E2=80=99
> phase.=E2=80=9D

Or maybe

  "Move patching of patches from =E2=80=98patch-paths=E2=80=99 to new =E2=
=80=98patch-patches=E2=80=99
   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 standa=
rd
>>   `set-paths' phase by renaming new phase to `set-additional-paths'.
>
> Just =E2=80=9CRename =E2=80=98set-paths=E2=80=99 phase to =E2=80=98set-=
additional-paths=E2=80=99.=E2=80=9D
>
> However the removal of CC and LD_LIBRARY_PATH should be made a separate
> patch.

Okay.

~~ Ricardo