Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

zlib sample build fixes for Gradle 8 or later #34

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

atsushieno
Copy link

context: #33 (comment)

There is no reason I do not contribute these local changes back ;-)

@atsushieno atsushieno changed the title Zlib gradle 8 zlib sample build fixes for Gradle 8 or later Feb 10, 2025
@saudet saudet requested a review from HGuillemet February 10, 2025 12:17
@saudet
Copy link
Member

saudet commented Feb 11, 2025

So, upgrading to Gradle 8.x forces us to write more code for the build files? But you said that Gradle 8.x actually makes it possible to write less code... Personally, I've given up on Gradle. They change everything on every minor release, but it still never quite does what it's actually supposed to do. If @HGuillemet says there's no better way to get Gradle 8.x working, I'll merge this though. Thanks for the contribution!

@atsushieno
Copy link
Author

atsushieno commented Feb 11, 2025

I didn't analyze Gradle 7 behavior in particular. It's going to be refused by any newer versions of IDEA platforms (minimum supported Gradle version).

If anyone intends to use specific Gradle version, gradle directory and Gradle wrapper files need to be checked in to the repo. That's what people do in Android and Kotlin ecosystem.

(I understand your pain and I want to dump Gradle and switch to mvn directly too, but we are consuming it in Kotlin ecosystem where only Gradle is used. So if gradle-javacpp does not work there, then we will have to give up entire JavaCPP.)

@HGuillemet
Copy link
Collaborator

There shouldn't be additional code in presets build.gradle files. See #31 (review) for my previous review of what would need to be done.

@atsushieno
Copy link
Author

So it seems you are not only aware of the issue but also identified what should be done and left it as is by intention.

@HGuillemet
Copy link
Collaborator

So it seems you are not only aware of the issue but also identified what should be done and left it as is by intention.

?

Rather by lack of time and of users interested in the build part of this plugin.
Since the previous issue in 2023, you're the only one reporting the problem.
There are a lot of things "left by intention" in the javacpp project.

I'll try to fix it in the following days/weeks. Please be patient.

@atsushieno
Copy link
Author

? As you indeed stated, I was just confirming that you left it as is by intention, for some reason.

I'm not impatient to wait for merging it, so if you don't have enough time do not try hard to do it. I only cared about whether it was really useful enough to publish packages that could be consumed by others and thought it is a step forward to make it useful in my spare time. If maintainers don't care about that, I do not want to insist to make it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants