Re: java: switch to icedtea-8 as default JDK

["Gábor Boskovits" <boskovits@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2246 bytes --]

2017-12-19 9:07 GMT+01:00 Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com>:

> Hi Gábor and Ricardo,
>
> I see that Gábor made this GitHub issue to track their work:
>
> https://github.com/Boskovits/guix/issues/16
>
> At this point, can I help with anything in particular, or should I wait
> until after Gábor pushes the fix(es) for java-hamcrest-core, so we can
> build the covering of icedtea-8 after that and see what still breaks?
>
>
I'm quite near to get a fix for java-hamcrest-core. Only java-jarjar has to
be modified now, so I think you can wait until I get this done.


> Gábor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I've found the problem with java-hamcrest-core.
> > The root cause of this is that java-jarjar uses a bundled copy of asm,
> > version 4.0.
> > This asm version does not support icedtea8.
> >
> > I propose to use java-asm instead of the bundled one.
> >
> > In my opinion the best course of action should be:
> > 1. create a package: java-asm-notest with tests diabled to break the
> > dependency cycle on java-hamcrest-core
> > 2. modify java-jarjar to use java-asm-notest instead of the bundled asm.
> > 3. test if java-hamcrest-core now builds.
> >
> > It is a question if we want to iterate this cycle once more, with a
> > tests-enabled java-asm.
> > WDYT?
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Gábor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > It seems, that it is aslo safe to apply this on master.
> > This is the patch:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Clean up depencies of java-asm.
>
> This patch seems fine to me.  I briefly looked but could not find it in
> the Guix Git repo; have you not pushed it yet?

Gábor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > We now have an upstream fix for classpathx, it is pushed as revision 1244
> > to the savannah subversion repo.
> > May I change the source to use this revision?
> > Or should I use a patch?
> >
> > I think using the upstream revision is a better option.
> > WDYT?
>
> I agree: using the upstream revision sounds like a better plan.  The
> only reason I can think why we would not want to do that is if it is
> going to take a long time for it to get released.
>
> --
> Chris
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3426 bytes --]