[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: jffi-1.2.7 and jenkins-1.565.3-4



On 5 Apr 2015, at 4:47 pm, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) <timothy.potter@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> On 5 Apr 2015, at 12:44 am, tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The fact that 1.0.2-11  had shipped a JAR in /usr/lib/jni/ had me
>> confused, but as Emmanuel pointed out, this needs to be multi-arch aware.
>> 
>> Tim, do you have a (simple?) run-time test I can use to validate the
>> package after moving the contents of the -native.jar to /usr/lib/jni/ ?
> 
> Hi Tony.  Thanks for the upload, and for the fix.  I was using as my fix the building (and associated unit test running) of the various other jnr-* packages that jffi is a rdependency for: jnr-ffi, jnr-enxio and jnr-unixsocket.  
> 
> I’ll tweak my Jenkins jobs to pull jffi from experimental and re-run the builds to tests.

Hi Tony.  I tried building the jnr-ffi package today with the new multi-arch version of jffi but it failed with a familiar Maven error:

[ERROR] BUILD ERROR
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Failed to resolve artifact.

Missing:
----------
1) com.github.jnr:jffi:jar:native:1.2.7

  Try downloading the file manually from the project website.

  Then, install it using the command: 
      mvn install:install-file -DgroupId=com.github.jnr -DartifactId=jffi -Dversion=1.2.7 -Dclassifier=native -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file

  Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can deploy the file there: 
      mvn deploy:deploy-file -DgroupId=com.github.jnr -DartifactId=jffi -Dversion=1.2.7 -Dclassifier=native -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]

  Path to dependency: 
  	1) com.github.jnr:jnr-ffi:jar:1.0.10
  	2) com.github.jnr:jffi:jar:native:1.2.7

Is there some magic required to get Maven to look in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/jni (or wherever) for the native JAR file?


Tim.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


Reply to: