Bugzilla Bug 157826

Hi! The patch on URL should be applied for dev-java/swt, shouldn't it?
Btw, isn't that xpcomgcc4 patch obsolete? Fedora, at least, does not apply it
anymore. Just wondering. :)

Sigh, how about describing what you want to patch and why?

Sigh, why should one version of swt (the one from eclipse-sdk) be patched and
the external from dev-java/swt not? ;)

Well, looking at the bugreport [1] it is fixed in 3.2.1. So it can be dropped
from eclipse-sdk-3.2.1(-r1).

Still, I am wondering about eclipse-sdk-3.2.1-libswt-xpcomgcc4.patch, see
bugreport [2].


[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=142861
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200929

I built dev-java/swt against firefox 2.0 and the SWT Browser does fine without
that xpcomgcc4 patch.
So, for x86 that patch is obsoleted by Fedoras firefox patch. I guess for other
archs, too.

We are currently building against seamonkey and there the patch is needed (see
bug 156716, bug 156716, bug 157510 ...)

Right, firefox.patch is correct, xpcomgcc4.patch is obsolete.

I mean, if you have had a look at Fedoras bugreport you would have seen that
the xpcomgcc4.patch is obsoleted by the firefox.patch.

Fedora build swt without xpcomgcc4.patch for any arch. I bet they have no magic
there. ;)

Created an attachment (id=104621) [details]
more cairo signedness warning fixes; arch-independent?

(In reply to comment #7)
> Created an attachment (id=104621) [edit] [details]
> more cairo signedness warning fixes; arch-independent?
> 

Is this something you wrote or already upstream? I would like to see as much
going upstream as possible.

I use swt-3.3M5 now. There are no signedness patches needed anymore afair.
And that xpcomgcc4.patch code went upstream, too.

(In reply to comment #9)
> I use swt-3.3M5 now. There are no signedness patches needed anymore afair.
> And that xpcomgcc4.patch code went upstream, too.
> 

I guess it's best to wait for 3.3* and the warnings will go away there. Is your
cairo patch needed for anything else than silencing warnings? But to me casting
around problems looks nasty.

Nothing else did the other patches do. ;)

(In reply to comment #11)
> Nothing else did the other patches do. ;)
> 

Heh. Your patch applied on ppc and amd64 so I added it to 3.2.2. I dropped the
xpcom4 patch from all but amd64 because I guess it could be still needed there.
If there is anything you want to change in 3.2.2 wrt patches please let me
know.

 https://overlays.gentoo.org/svn/proj/java/other/swt-patches