asm3 [Was: Jpackage: follow or lead?]

[Fernando Nasser]

Is objectweb-asm OK for the Asm 3.0 package?  An old request from some 
people I know from the ObjectWeb consortium.

Regards,
Fernando

Fernando Nasser wrote:
> 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,
> 
> -- 
> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
> Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
>