[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Jpackage: follow or lead?



On 8/22/07, Fernando Nasser <fnasser redhat com> wrote:
> Do you know how backwards-compatible is this Asm 3.x version?

Well, there are changes to the API:

http://asm.objectweb.org/jdiff223to30/changes.html

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.

> In any case, I think we should go with a asm3 one.  This end up being
> used by some software that require certification and changing the
> version used is always troublesome for their developers.

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.

> I can get asm3 into JPackage 5.0, perhaps into the devel area and could
> even import it and build.
>
> But I suspect, even being a versioned package of asm, one would still
> have to propose it using the usual proceedure.

Right.  I am certainly interested in seeing ASM 3.0 get into Fedora
one way or another.  Take that as an offer to help. :-)

[1] http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/
-- 
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]