Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop

[Ted Neward]

No promises heard, no expectations understood. :-)

I personally have a hard time following the argument that says that "because
we put them into our source repository, we're asserting some kind of legal
license ownership" or something, but hey, I'm not a lawyer, either. :-/

Here's a Really Dumb Question(TM): Is it possible (and then, is it
practical) to create a build that doesn't use any of the binary plugs stuff?
A stripped-down, JVM-and-core-classes-only kind of build that just uses the
core stuff that's out in the Sun-blessed open source domain? (I haven't
found that I cared about any of the binary plugs-related stuff yet, so...)

Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:12 PM
> To: Ted Neward
> Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; build-dev at openjdk.java.net; Tim.Bell at Sun.COM
> Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source
> drop
> 
> I would love for these binary plugs to go away, and second best, make
> them trivially available, but we are in legal territory here.
> I will bring up this issue and see if we can't do what you suggest,
> but I am not a lawyer, no promises.
> 
> They are a royal pain, no argument there.
> 
> -kto
> 
> Ted Neward wrote:
> > If they're going to change with every build release, then it's even
> MORE
> > important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository.
> Otherwise,
> > the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository
> > (rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out the
> window
> > when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs.
> >
> > I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source control
> that
> > states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in the
> source
> > repository", can I?
> >
> > Ted Neward
> > Java, .NET, XML Services
> > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
> > http://www.tedneward.com
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM
> >> To: Ted Neward
> >> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net
> >> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK
> source
> >> drop
> >>
> >> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote:
> >>> If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a different
> >>> repository?
> >>>
> >>> I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial
> >> equivalent)
> >>> and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; it's
> a
> >> lot
> >>> more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs
> >> (particularly
> >>> since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as the
> >> source
> >>> does), and only then do a build.
> >> That's wrong.  Every source build has it's matching binary plug.
> See:
> >>
> >> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/
> >>
> >> - twisti
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date:
> >> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM
> >>
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date:
> 9/20/2007
> > 12:07 PM
> >
> >
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date:
> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007
12:07 PM