Re: byte-buddy

[Felix Natter]

tony mancill  writes:

hello Tony,

>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal 
>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:3.6.1:compile 
>> (default-compile) on project byte-buddy-dep: Compilation failure
>> [ERROR] Could not instantiate an instance of processor 
>> 'lombok.launch.AnnotationProcessorHider'
>
> Which is essentially the same thing.  Is the package building for you in
> a clean sid chroot?

Sorry, I see this in a pbuilder chroot as well. I also tried the patch mentioned
in [1], and I got:

[ERROR] Could not instantiate an instance of processor
'lombok.launch.AnnotationProcessorHider$AnnotationProcessor'

This class is in the Debian lombok jar.

I also tried to change the scope of lombok from provided to compile.
I do not think it is related to the lombok version (1.16.16 vs 1.16.8).

Has anybody got an idea?

Thanks and Best Regards,
-- 
Felix Natter

Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java

[Ghislain Vaillant]

On 14/08/17 23:03, Markus Koschany wrote:

Am 14.08.2017 um 22:45 schrieb Ghislain Vaillant:



On 14/08/17 21:11, Markus Koschany wrote:


2. I saw the no-doc build profile annotations in debian/control. Is that
something that you specifically need for libimglib2-java or is there
another reason?


See
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.html#s-4.0.0,
section 4.9.1:


I believe it would not hurt but I am interested to know
more about the advantages and whether this should be used for other -doc
packages too.


Not sure what the advantages are, but adding support for it is not
difficult. At least compared to other packages I maintain where explicit
guards need to be added in the rules file to support nodoc builds.


It's quite late here in Germany and I still suffer from jet lag effects
but I believe we are talking about two different things right now.

Policy 4.9.1 is about the nodoc option to suppress building
documentation at all. So you could basically run something like


Actually, that was not the piece of documentation I wanted to refer to, 
the build profiles wiki article was.



DEB_BUILD_OPTION=nodoc gbp buildpackage

and then your -doc packages won't be built at all.


I don't think this is true.


However your annotations in debian/control are for bootstrapping debian
packages. [1] I believe you don't need them if you want to support
building your package without doc packages.


My understanding so far:

1) DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nodoc: doc packages are built but left mostly empty
2) DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nodoc: doc packages are not built at all


This is a more general tool
chain issue for Java packages. At the moment I'm not sure how well it is
supported but it is certainly something we want to support.


I believe what I have done only answers 2), and I agree solving 1) is 
more of a toolchain issue. Same comment for nocheck support.


I am happy to take it out from both libimglib2-java and 
libparsington-java if it is an issue anyway. I find it convenient to use 
"nocheck nodoc" when I have got a number of builds of inter-dependent 
packages to run locally, but I could also live without.


Or perhaps I am completely wrong.

Cheers,
Ghis