<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "http://bugs.gentoo.org/bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="2.22.7"
          urlbase="http://bugs.gentoo.org/"
          maintainer="bugzilla@gentoo.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>157826</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2006-12-11 07:03 0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>dev-java/swt patching</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2007-03-05 14:12:47 0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>Gentoo Linux</product>
          <component>Ebuilds</component>
          <version>unspecified</version>
          <rep_platform>All</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Linux</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          <bug_file_loc>https://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/java/browser/other/eclipse-patches/3.2.1/eclipse-sdk-3.2.1-swt-rm-ON_TOP.patch</bug_file_loc>
          
          
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter>h.mth@web.de</reporter>
          <assigned_to>java@gentoo.org</assigned_to>
          

      

      
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>h.mth@web.de</who>
            <bug_when>2006-12-11 07:03:35 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Hi! The patch on URL should be applied for dev-java/swt, shouldn&apos;t it?
Btw, isn&apos;t that xpcomgcc4 patch obsolete? Fedora, at least, does not apply it anymore. Just wondering. :)</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>jakub@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-12-11 13:57:06 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Sigh, how about describing what you want to patch and why?</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>h.mth@web.de</who>
            <bug_when>2006-12-11 14:22:53 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>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</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>h.mth@web.de</who>
            <bug_when>2006-12-12 00:36:15 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>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.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>caster@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-12-12 03:57:42 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>We are currently building against seamonkey and there the patch is needed (see bug 156716, bug 156716, bug 157510 ...)</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>h.mth@web.de</who>
            <bug_when>2006-12-12 07:10:40 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Right, firefox.patch is correct, xpcomgcc4.patch is obsolete.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>h.mth@web.de</who>
            <bug_when>2006-12-12 07:17:57 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>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. ;)</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>h.mth@web.de</who>
            <bug_when>2006-12-23 03:02:55 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Created an attachment (id=104621)
more cairo signedness warning fixes; arch-independent?

</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>betelgeuse@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-03-04 14:09:28 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>(In reply to comment #7)
&gt; Created an attachment (id=104621) [edit]
&gt; more cairo signedness warning fixes; arch-independent?
&gt; 

Is this something you wrote or already upstream? I would like to see as much going upstream as possible.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>h.mth@web.de</who>
            <bug_when>2007-03-04 14:39:01 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>I use swt-3.3M5 now. There are no signedness patches needed anymore afair.
And that xpcomgcc4.patch code went upstream, too.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>betelgeuse@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-03-05 12:36:55 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>(In reply to comment #9)
&gt; I use swt-3.3M5 now. There are no signedness patches needed anymore afair.
&gt; And that xpcomgcc4.patch code went upstream, too.
&gt; 

I guess it&apos;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.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>h.mth@web.de</who>
            <bug_when>2007-03-05 12:57:16 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Nothing else did the other patches do. ;)</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>betelgeuse@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-03-05 14:12:47 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>(In reply to comment #11)
&gt; Nothing else did the other patches do. ;)
&gt; 

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
</thetext>
          </long_desc>
      
          <attachment
              isobsolete="0"
              ispatch="1"
              isprivate="0"
          >
            <attachid>104621</attachid>
            <date>2006-12-23 03:02 0000</date>
            <desc>more cairo signedness warning fixes; arch-independent?</desc>
            <filename>swt-3.2-cairo-signedness.patch</filename>
            <type>text/plain</type>
            <data encoding="base64">LS0tIGNhaXJvLmMJMjAwNi0wNy0xNiAxOToxNjoyNy4wMDAwMDAwMDAgLTA1MDAKKysrIGNhaXJv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</data>        

          </attachment>
    </bug>

</bugzilla>