https://blogs.gentoo.org/ago/2020/07/04/gentoo-tinderbox/ Issue: net-p2p/biglybt-3.2.0.0 fails to compile. Discovered on: amd64 (internal ref: ci)
CC'ing also the author of the commit (47a5cc8bbdf2799cc5cf9ef9e0093e87dabb15b8)
Created attachment 845635 [details] build.log build log and emerge --info
Seems to work with openjdk:{8,17}.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=819bc7c53e56d5c83e4a4484eb7c14a911439742 commit 819bc7c53e56d5c83e4a4484eb7c14a911439742 Author: Volkmar W. Pogatzki <gentoo@pogatzki.net> AuthorDate: 2023-01-17 12:06:49 +0000 Commit: Miroslav Šulc <fordfrog@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2023-03-19 06:31:29 +0000 net-p2p/biglybt: add 3.3.0.0, drop 3.2.0.0-r2 restricts to jdk:11 switches dependency swt:4.10 -> swt:4.26 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/888859 Signed-off-by: Volkmar W. Pogatzki <gentoo@pogatzki.net> Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/29142/commits/ddd2e81ca98f7e545354e657317b7ff5a1efe11b Signed-off-by: Miroslav Šulc <fordfrog@gentoo.org> net-p2p/biglybt/Manifest | 2 +- ...ybt-3.2.0.0-r2.ebuild => biglybt-3.3.0.0.ebuild} | 20 +++++++------------- net-p2p/biglybt/metadata.xml | 2 ++ net-p2p/biglybt/plugins/azupdater/Updater.jar | Bin 0 -> 23974 bytes net-p2p/biglybt/plugins/azupdater/azupdater_2.1.zip | Bin 0 -> 27241 bytes .../plugins/azupdater/azupdaterpatcher_2.0.jar | Bin 0 -> 2970 bytes net-p2p/biglybt/plugins/azupdater/plugin.properties | 4 ++++ .../biglybt/plugins/azupdater/plugin.properties_2.1 | 3 +++ 8 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
I was a bid surprised to see that after an update a second, older version of java was going to be installed on my system. I looked into the reason and found this bug. Can you please explain why you chose to do this change? It appears that tinderbox tried to compile the package with "USE=doc" and javadoc crashed (see build.log). That seems to be a bug with openjdk-bin-17 javadoc. I fear that it may be forgotten why this change was introduced. Would it not be better to simply remove the doc USE flag, or depend on jdk:11 only when doc is enabled? IMHO this is not the best way to handle this issues, since we may forget why this change was introduced.
(In reply to aperion from comment #5) > I was a bid surprised to see that after an update a second, older version of > java was going to be installed on my system. I looked into the reason and > found this bug. > > Can you please explain why you chose to do this change? > > It appears that tinderbox tried to compile the package with "USE=doc" and > javadoc crashed (see build.log). > > That seems to be a bug with openjdk-bin-17 javadoc. I fear that it may be > forgotten why this change was introduced. Would it not be better to simply > remove the doc USE flag, or depend on jdk:11 only when doc is enabled? > > IMHO this is not the best way to handle this issues, since we may forget why > this change was introduced. Once upstream fixes the javadoc issue the restriction to jdk:11 will be dropped.
There is a patch in https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/33844
And it fails only with java 17 while it works with java 8, 11 and 21.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=64a68d6ed5b29c4a4397952bcc0b95678e548e99 commit 64a68d6ed5b29c4a4397952bcc0b95678e548e99 Author: Volkmar W. Pogatzki <gentoo@pogatzki.net> AuthorDate: 2023-11-16 12:29:22 +0000 Commit: Miroslav Šulc <fordfrog@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2023-12-07 12:51:42 +0000 net-p2p/biglybt: add 3.5.0.0 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/888859 Signed-off-by: Volkmar W. Pogatzki <gentoo@pogatzki.net> Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/33844 Signed-off-by: Miroslav Šulc <fordfrog@gentoo.org> net-p2p/biglybt/Manifest | 1 + net-p2p/biglybt/biglybt-3.5.0.0.ebuild | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++ .../files/biglybt-3.5.0.0-Entities.javadoc.patch | 18 ++++ 3 files changed, 128 insertions(+)
