Andrew John Hughes | 3 Nov 20:20 2009
Picon

[PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)

With the new version of X11 (specifically libXext >= 1.1), the XShm.h
header has been refactored.

As a result, the build fails on awt_GraphicsEnv.c.  This simple patch:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/xshm/webrev.01

fixes the issue, without affecting older versions.  It's trivial, but
very important; this new X11 is already in Gentoo, it'll be in F12
(where we first discovered this issue), and it's no doubt heading to
an Ubuntu near you soon.

The patch was contributed by Diego Pettenò <flameeyes@...>, who
I'm informed has signed the SCA.

Does this look ok? If so, can I have a bug ID to push this to the
awt-gate (or wherever is appropriate)?

Thanks,
--

-- 
Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

(Continue reading)

Phil Race | 3 Nov 20:35 2009
Picon

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)

awt_Graphics and XShm is more for 2D than AWT, but
I'm not sure how much it matters for this small change.
Attach the patch to a bugzilla report .. someone will
need to generate a sun bug id too. Can you post a zip
of the webvrev somewhere?

And is there an X11 reference you can cite to this apparent
source incompatible change there?

-phil.

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> With the new version of X11 (specifically libXext >= 1.1), the XShm.h
> header has been refactored.
> 
> As a result, the build fails on awt_GraphicsEnv.c.  This simple patch:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/xshm/webrev.01
> 
> fixes the issue, without affecting older versions.  It's trivial, but
> very important; this new X11 is already in Gentoo, it'll be in F12
> (where we first discovered this issue), and it's no doubt heading to
> an Ubuntu near you soon.
> 
> The patch was contributed by Diego Pettenò <flameeyes@...>, who
> I'm informed has signed the SCA.
> 
> Does this look ok? If so, can I have a bug ID to push this to the
> awt-gate (or wherever is appropriate)?
> 
(Continue reading)

Andrew John Hughes | 3 Nov 22:12 2009
Picon

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)

2009/11/3 Phil Race <Phil.Race@...>:
> awt_Graphics and XShm is more for 2D than AWT, but
> I'm not sure how much it matters for this small change.

It's called awt_Graphics hence the AWT list.  I doubt the distinction
between 2d and awt classes is clear to anyone outside Sun.

> Attach the patch to a bugzilla report .. someone will
> need to generate a sun bug id too. Can you post a zip
> of the webvrev somewhere?

I'm aware we need a Sun bug ID; that's why I asked for one to be
allocated in the e-mail.  I have commit rights so I don't need
mentoring; I just need a review and a bug ID so I can push the fix.  I
don't see why you need all this other superfluous stuff, as it wasn't
needed for any of my other pushes to various repos.

Is the patch ok?  If so, could you please allocate it a bug ID.

>
> And is there an X11 reference you can cite to this apparent
> source incompatible change there?
>

There's http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-June/001242.html
but I avoided posting this in the original mail because it seems to
have changed again between that commit and the final release,
presumably due to compatibility issues (XShm.h is back and it's now
shmproto.h as seen in the patch).  I've built the repo with this patch
here with the old version, and others have built it with the new
(Continue reading)

Phil Race | 3 Nov 22:18 2009
Picon

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)


Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/11/3 Phil Race <Phil.Race@...>:
>> awt_Graphics and XShm is more for 2D than AWT, but
>> I'm not sure how much it matters for this small change.
> 
> It's called awt_Graphics hence the AWT list.  I doubt the distinction
> between 2d and awt classes is clear to anyone outside Sun.

But Graphics is I'd hope obviously 2D, and lots of things
have AWT in the name as hangovers from JDk 1.0, 1.1, where
there was no 2D.

> 
>> Attach the patch to a bugzilla report .. someone will
>> need to generate a sun bug id too. Can you post a zip
>> of the webvrev somewhere?
> 
> I'm aware we need a Sun bug ID; that's why I asked for one to be
> allocated in the e-mail.  I have commit rights so I don't need
> mentoring; I just need a review and a bug ID so I can push the fix.  I
> don't see why you need all this other superfluous stuff, as it wasn't
> needed for any of my other pushes to various repos.

The superfluous stuff is the copy of the webrev?
We archive them. Not all groups do that. Swing, AWT and 2D do.
Occasionally someone may fail to get one from a contribution
but its still the theoretical process to have it.

> 
(Continue reading)

Phil Race | 3 Nov 22:21 2009
Picon

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)


PS

>>
>> Is the patch ok?  

yes.

-phil.

Andrew John Hughes | 3 Nov 22:50 2009
Picon

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)

2009/11/3 Phil Race <Phil.Race@...>:
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 2009/11/3 Phil Race <Phil.Race@...>:
>>>
>>> awt_Graphics and XShm is more for 2D than AWT, but
>>> I'm not sure how much it matters for this small change.
>>
>> It's called awt_Graphics hence the AWT list.  I doubt the distinction
>> between 2d and awt classes is clear to anyone outside Sun.
>
> But Graphics is I'd hope obviously 2D, and lots of things
> have AWT in the name as hangovers from JDk 1.0, 1.1, where
> there was no 2D.
>

Yeah, it's not clear-cut -- so don't be surprised if we post to the
wrong list :)

>>
>>> Attach the patch to a bugzilla report .. someone will
>>> need to generate a sun bug id too. Can you post a zip
>>> of the webvrev somewhere?
>>
>> I'm aware we need a Sun bug ID; that's why I asked for one to be
>> allocated in the e-mail.  I have commit rights so I don't need
>> mentoring; I just need a review and a bug ID so I can push the fix.  I
>> don't see why you need all this other superfluous stuff, as it wasn't
(Continue reading)

Phil Race | 3 Nov 22:53 2009
Picon

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)


Andrew John Hughes wrote:

> My superfluous comment actually referred to the additional request for
> an OpenJDK bugzilla entry.  I fail to see the point of this, given a
> Sun bug ID is still needed to commit.  Most of the bugs there just
> seem to be in danger of bitrotting, and I'd prefer to avoid adding one
> that's just going to be closed fairly swiftly anyway.  It would be
> nice if we could use OpenJDK bugzilla IDs for commits, and thus didn't
> have to hassle Sun employees for Sun bug IDs.  But that still doesn't
> seem to have been implemented.

Ah .. yes .. well you may be right you don't need that if you
can push it directly. I keep having to look up that part of the
process myself. But IIIRC theory its supposed to be used to submit
patches, not report bugs (sans patch), and you had a patch, which
is why I suggested it.

> 
>>> Is the patch ok?  If so, could you please allocate it a bug ID.
>> I overlooked that in your email. But I already asked Jennifer to allocate
>> one.
>>
> 
> Thanks.  I'll push once it's allocated.

Jennifer says she's doing it now.

-phil.

(Continue reading)

Jim Graham | 3 Nov 23:07 2009
Picon

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> There's http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-June/001242.html
> but I avoided posting this in the original mail because it seems to
> have changed again between that commit and the final release,
> presumably due to compatibility issues (XShm.h is back and it's now
> shmproto.h as seen in the patch).  I've built the repo with this patch
> here with the old version, and others have built it with the new
> version; it does work for both.  The same patch is already in Gentoo's
> ebuild and IcedTea, and a similar patch has been used for the Fedora
> rawhide RPMs for some time.  It would be good to get it upstream as
> well.

At first I was going to ask how the existing #include succeeds when the 
link says that Xshm.h is going away, but now I see that you said they 
brought it back.  What is it now?  Just an empty include to prevent 
#include failures?  (I don't see how that works since the build will 
break anyway as soon as a missing constant is referenced...?)

(It seems odd that they bring it back to [not really] avoid build 
breakages, but then don't just have it include the new split files to 
finish the "backwards compatibility" story...?)

			...jim

Jennifer Godinez | 3 Nov 23:09 2009
Picon

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)

The sun bug ID is 6897844.

Jennifer

Phil Race wrote:
> 
> PS
> 
>>>
>>> Is the patch ok?  
> 
> yes.
> 
> -phil.

Andrew John Hughes | 3 Nov 23:15 2009
Picon

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [PATCH FOR APPROVAL]: Fix broken build on newer versions of X11 (libXext >= 1.1.0)

2009/11/3 Phil Race <Phil.Race@...>:
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>> My superfluous comment actually referred to the additional request for
>> an OpenJDK bugzilla entry.  I fail to see the point of this, given a
>> Sun bug ID is still needed to commit.  Most of the bugs there just
>> seem to be in danger of bitrotting, and I'd prefer to avoid adding one
>> that's just going to be closed fairly swiftly anyway.  It would be
>> nice if we could use OpenJDK bugzilla IDs for commits, and thus didn't
>> have to hassle Sun employees for Sun bug IDs.  But that still doesn't
>> seem to have been implemented.
>
> Ah .. yes .. well you may be right you don't need that if you
> can push it directly. I keep having to look up that part of the
> process myself. But IIIRC theory its supposed to be used to submit
> patches, not report bugs (sans patch), and you had a patch, which
> is why I suggested it.
>

I guess I'm as confused as you are regarding it, so I've just tended
to go with what I've found to work.

The impression I got from the announcement was that, at the moment,
it's just for posting patches that need a sponsor/mentor to get them
into the repository (i.e. the situations that lead to a 'Contributed
by' tag).
It was supposed to be being developed into something that would
replace the Sun bug ID system altogether for external contributors,
(Continue reading)


Gmane