ecj problem and patch

[Anthony Green]

As discussed on #fedora-java IRC (irc.freenode.net), The Eclipse batch
compiler appears to place bootclasspath before classpath, making it
impossible to override classes in libgcj.jar.  This is a problem for
jpackages wanting to use xml-commons-apis, which provides an alternate
version of org.w3c.dom.

I produced the following patch, which needs to be applied last in our
set of Eclipse patches.

Another snag I hit was that the FC4 Eclipse SRPM doesn't build anymore,
since the archived make files reference an outdated version of mozilla.
swttmp/build.sh should probably contain something like this instead of
hardcoded values:

GECKO_INCLUDES=`pkg-config mozilla-gtkmozembed --cflags`
               GECKO_LIBS='pkg-config mozilla-gtkmozembed --libs`

But I see that patching this isn't simple because build.sh is extracted
from a .zip file at build time.  Hopefully overholt has a good idea for
fixing this.

While eclipse didn't build - it did build enough to give me a
jdtcore.jar file I could manually install (after generating
jdtcore.jar.so by hand).  My tests of the patched compiler indicate that
this is a step closer to the right solution.  Can we get this into FC4
and rawhide?

AG

[Tom Tromey]

> > > > > "Anthony" == Anthony Green  writes:

Anthony> I produced the following patch, which needs to be applied
Anthony> last in our set of Eclipse patches.

Want to file this in Eclipse bugzilla?
If you do, let me know the PR number as I'd like to track it.

Tom

[Thomas Fitzsimmons]

On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 07:28 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > > > > "Anthony" == Anthony Green  writes:
>
> Anthony> I produced the following patch, which needs to be applied
> Anthony> last in our set of Eclipse patches.
>
> Want to file this in Eclipse bugzilla?
> If you do, let me know the PR number as I'd like to track it.

I'd like to test this before we send the patch.  I'm not convinced it's
entirely correct.  But we probably should file the bug itself in Eclipse
bugzilla.

Tom

[Anthony Green]

On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 12:44 -0400, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 07:28 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > > > > > "Anthony" == Anthony Green  writes:
> >
> > Anthony> I produced the following patch, which needs to be applied
> > Anthony> last in our set of Eclipse patches.
> >
> > Want to file this in Eclipse bugzilla?
> > If you do, let me know the PR number as I'd like to track it.
>
> I'd like to test this before we send the patch.  I'm not convinced it's
> entirely correct.  But we probably should file the bug itself in Eclipse
> bugzilla.

I've done this now: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=113458

I needed to patch Eclipse in order to build Batik.   That bugzilla entry
includes a patch against Eclipse 3.1.1.

AG

[Anthony Green]

On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 12:43 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
> I've done this now: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=113458
>
> I needed to patch Eclipse in order to build Batik.   That bugzilla entry
> includes a patch against Eclipse 3.1.1.

Ok, apparently this is wrong.  The JDK 1.5 documentation seems to clear
up once and for all the search order for classes.

So, it seems like that way to deal with this is to force the problem
package onto the endorsed dir path.  Is there even any way to specify
this to the eclipse compiler from the ant command line?

AG

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Anthony,

On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 10:48 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
> Ok, apparently this is wrong.  The JDK 1.5 documentation seems to
> clear up once and for all the search order for classes.

I couldn't quickly find this documentation. Where did you find it?

Thanks,

Mark