[aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8168503 JEP 297: Unified arm32/arm64 Port
Andrew Haley
aph at redhat.com
Thu Mar 16 18:27:49 UTC 2017
On 16/03/17 18:03, Bob Vandette wrote:
> I agree that this is an issue but I’m not sure that it’s a show
> stopper.
>
> The Oracle build will not have OpenJDK in the version string which
> will help to differentiate our binaries from OpenJDK builds.
Right, like I said.
> The bug database field that I think you are describing is only an
> indication of the architecture that a bug can be reproduced on. It
> is not meant to describe the sources that were used to produce the
> binaries or where the binaries came from. That should to be
> specified elsewhere in the bug report.
OK. I would surely have tried to insist that the version strings were
different for our two ports at the time your port was committed, but I
blew my chance.
> I don’t like the idea of listing arm64 in the version string since
> we are only using arm64 internally to trigger the use of the hotspot
> “arm” directory. We’d also end up with lots of incorrect bug
> entries since folks will fail to use arm64 to report a bug in the
> Oracle 64-bit ARM port running on an aarch64 based system.
>
> If we start putting build configuration information in the version
> string, then where do we stop.
It's going to be rather horrible, though. How do we reproduce a bug
if we don't know what port is causing the bug? How do we even ask the
question if we don't know what the ports are called? I always assumed
we were "aarch64" and you were "arm64". How are we to ask a user if
we can't tell them what to look for?
Even if we don't change anything in OpenJDK itself, we'll still have
to agree on a label to use in the bug database. I don't know what
labels we should use, but we should agree on them now. Do you have
any preferences?
Andrew.
More information about the aarch64-port-dev
mailing list