Jerry, please try this:
http://fnasser.fedorapeople.org/objectweb-asm-3.0-1jpp.src.rpm
Fernando Nasser wrote:
Is objectweb-asm OK for the Asm 3.0 package? An old request from some
people I know from the ObjectWeb consortium.
Regards,
Fernando
Fernando Nasser wrote:
Jerry James wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply, Fernando.
On 8/22/07, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jerry,
Jerry James wrote:
Whether those changes affect any particular application will require
examining that application, of course. In my case, I want to get
findbugs [1] into Fedora, but current findbugs uses ASM 3.0, hence
this thread. Permaine is working on getting the current jpackage.org
asm2 package into Fedora, but there doesn't seem to be anyone working
on ASM 3.0.
I think it is just because nobody asked for it I guess... findbugs
uses
bcel in the JPP build.
BTW, why not using bcel?
The JPP build of findbugs is at version 0.9.6, before ASM support was
added. The current version is 1.2.1. Building a current findbugs
successfully will require one of the following:
(1) Use the ASM jars that come with findbugs to build and either:
(a) Install the ASM jars as part of the findbugs package until
somebody
complains; or
(b) Don't install the ASM jars and somehow advertise that ASM
support
doesn't work so you'd better use BCEL
(2) Patch findbugs to rip out all references to ASM.
(3) Get ASM 3.0 into Fedora first.
I think that (3) is the best option.
I totally agree. Let me start looking into the asm3 package. I have
a release on Friday so this is not an easy week, but I will do my best.
I am also interested in a newer findbugs for JPP 5.0 as well, and may
ask you for some help with that.
Regards,
Fernando
Yes. My worry is that with the current naming scheme, we will find
ourselves making asm3 packages now, asm4 packages next year, asm5
packages after that, etc. I would think it would be better to have an
asm-3.0 package now, and compat-asm-2.x versions if needed. However,
that runs contrary to the jpackage naming scheme.
It wil all depend on upstream projects upgrading from asm 1.x and 2.x I
guess, of some of us patching them to use the newer version instead.
I'd still say we add an asm3 to JPP and import it in here.
Okay.
Let me see if I can build asm3
But I stil wonder why not use bcel, which we already have?
Answered above.
BTW, have you looked at the findbugs package in JPP 5.0?
Likewise. Thanks,
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
