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

[Thomas Fitzsimmons]

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