Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop

[Kelly O'Hair]

We want to start using findbugs as some kind of optional part of the
build, so this was just step one. Not sure when we will hook it up.

I am of the opinion that we should make the build cleaner,
both in cleaning up the cc/javac/javadoc warnings, turning
on maximum warnings, and running findbugs.
Again, not sure when, not a minor undertaking, and it will be a global effort.

I suspect Jonathan and the langtools workspace/repository will likely take
the lead in this, one of the benefits of the split of sources means that
the langtools team can concentrate on their own sources, and making them
squeeeeeeeky clean. ;^)

-kto

Ted Neward wrote:
> Related question: according to make sanity, it now looks for FindBugs, but I
> don't find anything in the make README that describes why, or where to put
> the FindBugs stuff.... When did this get added? B19 or 20? Is it going to
> remain a part of the build going forward?
> 
> Ted Neward
> Java, .NET, XML Services
> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
> http://www.tedneward.com
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev-
>> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Ted Neward
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:13 PM
>> To: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM
>> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source
>> drop
>>
>> Exactly. It might be a nice way around the binary plugs for those who
>> don't
>> care about that stuff.
>>
>> 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: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:21 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 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: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date:
>> 9/21/2007 2:02 PM
>>
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007
> 5:00 PM
>  
>