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

[Andrew John Hughes]

2009/11/3 Phil Race <Phil.Race at sun.com>:
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 2009/11/3 Phil Race <Phil.Race at sun.com>:
>>>
>>> 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
>> 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.
>

That's very sensible.  I've been wondering why webrev generates a
webrev.zip and now I know.
I've include the webrev.zip at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/xshm/webrev.01/webrev.zip and will
do so in future.  I didn't before, because I didn't realise anyone
made use of this.

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.

>>
>> 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.

>>
>>> 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
>> 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.
>
> OK .. although I was looking for something where they pointed out
> this was likely to cause build failures but was justified because ...
>

So would I! They do mention it's an API breakage, but only seem to
have considered internal issues. I couldn't see any discussion of
external breakages in the past few months of mail archives.  The only
justification seems to be 'we want to clear up some cruft'...

> -phil.
>
>>
>>> -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 at gmail.com>, 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

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8