From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E254138359 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 411C8E0798; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27073E0798 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-soc] Weekly Report: Big Data Infrastructure and Maven Overlay in Week 6 To: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org References: <04889986-b273-fd5f-5375-02d0ab0f3a99@gentoo.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Miroslav_=c5=a0ulc?= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 07:03:37 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Archives-Salt: fde57e13-1285-4ce6-b3d1-fab6d563320b X-Archives-Hash: bbdd7de9ac5bc07bf39c4856cb80cc0e Dne 13. 07. 20 v 5:20 Zhang Zongyu napsal(a): > Miroslav Šulc 于2020年7月12日周日 下午11:59写道： >> hi Zhongyu, >> >> thank you for the report! looks like a nice progress to me :-) is there >> anything i could help you with? > I think we may discuss about how to compare locally compiles jars and > binjars, and how to emerge kotlin, scala and lombok source files. there are tools that could help with the comparison: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Java_Developer_Guide#Java_API_Check imo there are two checks needed: 1) check whether the api is the same both for our binary and upstream binary (that verifies no code is missing) 2) check whether all needed resources are included in our binary (that verifies that all resources needed for runtime will be available) there might also be changes in the manifest file but those might not be that important in most cases imo >> wrt java-virtuals/*, there was a request (from mgorny iirc) to get rid >> of java-virtuals/*. imo the logic of java-virtuals should be preserved, >> but the virtuals should be placed under dev-java/ and use a naming >> template like this: >> >> virtual = dev-java/servlet-api >> implementations = dev-java/tomcat-servlet-api, >> dev-java/glassfish-servlet-api etc. >> >> also, is java-pkg-simple.eclass ready for the main tree? and if so, did >> you consider to go through the review process of the eclass? it might >> take some time to get through the process so it might be good to start >> the process soon to not be blocked by the process later. > Currently, there are few differences between the main tree version and > the one in my overlay. > Functions to deal with JAVA_RESOURCES and JAVA_TEST_SRC_DIR do not > appear in java-pkg-simple now. > I am not sure whether I should go through the review now, because > there isn't so much progress for java-pkg-simple. > So maybe I will not go through the review this week. > >> i also just pushed your commits to the main java-ebuilder repo. >> >> thank you for your work and best regards! >> >> miroslav >> >> > Regards, > Zhang Zongyu >