asm3 [Was: Jpackage: follow or lead?]

Fernando Nasser fnasser at redhat.com
Wed Aug 22 18:46:34 UTC 2007


Jerry James wrote:
> Thanks for the quick reply, Fernando.
> 
> On 8/22/07, Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> Jerry James wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I think it is just because nobody asked for it I guess...  findbugs uses
>> bcel in the JPP build.
>>
>> BTW, why not using bcel?
> 
> The JPP build of findbugs is at version 0.9.6, before ASM support was
> added.  The current version is 1.2.1.  Building a current findbugs
> successfully will require one of the following:
> 
> (1) Use the ASM jars that come with findbugs to build and either:
>     (a) Install the ASM jars as part of the findbugs package until somebody
>         complains; or
>     (b) Don't install the ASM jars and somehow advertise that ASM support
>         doesn't work so you'd better use BCEL
> (2) Patch findbugs to rip out all references to ASM.
> (3) Get ASM 3.0 into Fedora first.
> 
> I think that (3) is the best option.
> 

I totally agree.  Let me start looking into the asm3 package.  I have a 
release on Friday so this is not an easy week, but I will do my best.

I am also interested in a newer findbugs for JPP 5.0 as well, and may 
ask you for some help with that.

Regards,
Fernando



>>> 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.
>>>
>> It wil all depend on upstream projects upgrading from asm 1.x and 2.x I
>> guess, of some of us patching them to use the newer version instead.
>>
>> I'd still say we add an asm3 to JPP and import it in here.
> 
> Okay.
> 
>> Let me see if I can build asm3
>>
>> But I stil wonder why not use bcel, which we already have?
> 
> Answered above.
> 
>> BTW, have you looked at the findbugs package in JPP 5.0?
> 
> Likewise.  Thanks,




More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list