After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 684442 - Support use of JAVACFLAGS during build
Support use of JAVACFLAGS during build
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: java-atk-wrapper
Classification: Applications
Component: general
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: java-atk-wrapper maintainer(s)
java-atk-wrapper maintainer(s)
Depends on: 703358
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-09-20 09:08 UTC by James Page
Modified: 2015-02-27 16:57 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Patch to add JAVACFLAGS (1.09 KB, patch)
2012-09-20 09:08 UTC, James Page
none Details | Review
Git formatted version of patch (1.47 KB, patch)
2012-09-20 09:11 UTC, James Page
committed Details | Review

Description James Page 2012-09-20 09:08:23 UTC
Created attachment 224817 [details] [review]
Patch to add JAVACFLAGS

Ubuntu Quantal has switched default java implementation to openjdk-7; as a result java-atk-wrapper (which builds with the default jdk) no longer builds backwards compatible code - which is required to support use with openjdk-6.

This patch adds the JAVACFLAGS option to the build process to allow flags to be passed to javac (in this case I'm using "-source 1.5 -target 1.5").
Comment 1 James Page 2012-09-20 09:11:13 UTC
Created attachment 224818 [details] [review]
Git formatted version of patch
Comment 2 André Klapper 2013-08-14 10:05:02 UTC
[Mass-resetting default assignee, see bug 705890. Please reclaim this bug report by setting the assignee to yourself if you still plan to work on this. Thanks!]
Comment 3 Magdalen Berns (irc magpie) 2014-02-28 20:21:05 UTC
Review of attachment 224818 [details] [review]:

Seems fine but I am not sure why you needed to remove this test to solve the problem:

if test "x$with_jdk_auto_detect" = "xyes";
Comment 4 Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias (IRC: infapi00) 2014-03-03 13:31:43 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Review of attachment 224818 [details] [review]:
> 
> Seems fine but I am not sure why you needed to remove this test to solve the
> problem:
> 
> if test "x$with_jdk_auto_detect" = "xyes";

The patch doesn't remove that line. If you take a look to configure.in after applying the patch, you would find that the line is still there.

What the patch has is this line:
@@ -85,7 +87,7 @@ if test "x$with_jdk_auto_detect" = "xyes"; then

In spite of that '-' symbol, it doesn't mean that is a removal line. It just indicate how much of the code is shown, to give context to the change.

In any case, I agree that in general the patch seems fine. In any case, I was not able to test it due bug 703358
Comment 5 Magdalen Berns (irc magpie) 2014-04-20 13:50:21 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Review of attachment 224818 [details] [review] [details]:
> > 
> > Seems fine but I am not sure why you needed to remove this test to solve the
> > problem:
> > 
> > if test "x$with_jdk_auto_detect" = "xyes";
> 
> The patch doesn't remove that line. If you take a look to configure.in after
> applying the patch, you would find that the line is still there.
> 
> What the patch has is this line:
> @@ -85,7 +87,7 @@ if test "x$with_jdk_auto_detect" = "xyes"; then
> 
> In spite of that '-' symbol, it doesn't mean that is a removal line. It just
> indicate how much of the code is shown, to give context to the change.
> 
> In any case, I agree that in general the patch seems fine. In any case, I was
> not able to test it due bug 703358

Thanks for clarifying. It was not the patch diff that had me confused but the bugzilla review colour coding which had the line highlighted blue on the left and missing on the right

I think this caught me out before once too so I'll be sure to check the raw patch in future and see I am interpreting things right. The review diffs will take some getting used to I think so cheers for helping out.
Comment 6 Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias (IRC: infapi00) 2014-04-22 17:11:26 UTC
Im not able to test the patch for this bug due bug 703358. Adding dependency.
Comment 7 Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias (IRC: infapi00) 2014-05-06 17:02:52 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> Im not able to test the patch for this bug due bug 703358. Adding dependency.

This bug was solved. I was able to test the patch, and it works, in the sense that the module still compiles (test the module itself is still WIP).

So pushing the patch, and closing the bug.

Thanks for the patch.
Comment 8 André Klapper 2015-02-27 16:57:14 UTC
[Moving at-spi/java-atk-wrapper bugs to separate product. See bug 740075]