Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop

[Kelly O'Hair]

Good question... I'll explore that possibility, warn that no plugs are
available but build as much as possible kind of thing, right?

-kto

Ted Neward wrote:
> 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
>  
>