OpenJDK 6 Skeleton Plan for OSX Universal Binary

[Lussier, Denis]

It's my personal goal that it be run well behaved Java client (swing
and swk) and server apps (tomcat, jboss, etc, etc) perfectly.  In
short, any 100% pure java app will run.  We must keep in mind that
older versions of Eclipse for OSX are hardcoded to use the built in
Apple JVM's and ignore the JAVA_HOME Env variable.  In a phase 2 we
could get ther IcedTea extensions built on the Web so we get the
Webstart. Stuff and other goodies.

On 10/26/10, MiB <digital.discuss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 24 okt 2010 kl. 13.56 skrev Lussier, Denis:
>
>> I believe that getting IcedTea to work on an OSX port is a great
>> thing, but...  I I think this should be an extended goal that's
>> tackled first for OpenJDK 7 (since it already builds on OSX).
>>
>> I think the milestones toward getting a robust OSX release for
>> OpenJDK 6 should be:
>>
>> 1.) Get a baseline build of the latest OpenJDK 6 code bundle
>> (currently b20) to build on OSX 10.5 Intel in 32-bit mode.   There
>> should be a minimal set of patches applied to the make files and
>> source code similar to what is currently done for OpenJDK 7 BSD port.
>>
>> 2.) Get the above build working as a universal binary.
> What are the possible pitfalls of making it build and then run on PPC?
>
>>
>> 3.) Make sure the above Universal binary runs really well on 10.4
>> PPC thru 10.6 Intel.
> I assume this means "run well in a compatible fashion on 10.4 Intel/
> PPC, 10,5 intel/PPC as well 10.6 Intel". Perhaps obvious, but I just
> want to make it that. :-)
>
> The problem I've had with Landon Fullers Open JDK 7 2009 beta-
> compilation – Thanks Landon! – is I'm not sure how to make it a full
> citizen. I've reset JAVA_HOME pointing to it and for some apps, like
> CLI apps, this works fine and others, like Eclipse or specifically
> Springsource Tool Suite refuse to run on it. Netbeans accepted it as a
> target VM, but I haven't been able to start up Netbeans with on it.
>
> This leads me to the issue what distributions the Mac openJDK should
> be compatible with. Is it the openJDK on other platforms or the OS X
> java implementation style? In 10.6 it's easy to add additional JVM's,
> but seems less so in 10.5.
>
>
> /MB
>
>
>
>