Bug 157826 – dev-java/swt patching

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Hanno Zysik (geki) 2006-12-11 07:03:35 UTC]

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. :)

[Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2006-12-11 13:57:06 UTC]

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

[Comment 2 Hanno Zysik (geki) 2006-12-11 14:22:53 UTC]

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

[Comment 3 Hanno Zysik (geki) 2006-12-12 00:36:15 UTC]

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.

[Comment 4 Vlastimil Babka (Caster) (RETIRED) 2006-12-12 03:57:42 UTC]

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

[Comment 5 Hanno Zysik (geki) 2006-12-12 07:10:40 UTC]

Right, firefox.patch is correct, xpcomgcc4.patch is obsolete.

[Comment 6 Hanno Zysik (geki) 2006-12-12 07:17:57 UTC]

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. ;)

[Comment 7 Hanno Zysik (geki) 2006-12-23 03:02:55 UTC]

Created attachment 104621 [details, diff]
more cairo signedness warning fixes; arch-independent?

[Comment 8 Petteri Räty (RETIRED) 2007-03-04 14:09:28 UTC]

(In reply to comment #7)
> Created an attachment (id=104621) [edit]
> 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.

[Comment 9 Hanno Zysik (geki) 2007-03-04 14:39:01 UTC]

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

[Comment 10 Petteri Räty (RETIRED) 2007-03-05 12:36:55 UTC]

(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.

[Comment 11 Hanno Zysik (geki) 2007-03-05 12:57:16 UTC]

Nothing else did the other patches do. ;)

[Comment 12 Petteri Räty (RETIRED) 2007-03-05 14:12:47 UTC]

(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