Need reviewer - minor top level make changes

[Kelly O'Hair]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/12/23 Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>:
>> 2009/12/23 Kelly O'Hair <Kelly.Ohair at sun.com>:
>>>
>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>> 2009/11/19 Kelly O'Hair <Kelly.Ohair at sun.com>:
>>>>> Need reviewer. Some very minor top level make file changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6727046: Add message when docs are skipped in control build
>>>>> 6864011: typo? in top level Makefile: DAYE_STAMP
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ohair/openjdk7/top-make-fixes/webrev/
>>>>>
>>>>> -kto
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This is a bit more than just adding a message.  It also adds:
>>>>
>>>> +  # No DOCS build when JDK_UPDATE_VERSION set
>>>> +  ifdef JDK_UPDATE_VERSION
>>>> +    GENERATE_DOCS=false
>>>> +  endif
>>>>
>>> Sorry about that, I assumed I was making a correction to a long standing
>>> problem. When we build jdk update releases, the docs are not regenerated.
>>> The variable JDK_UPDATE_VERSION indicates a jdk update build, I
>>> just assumed that's what it was being used for.
>>>
>> I would expect setting JDK_UPDATE_VERSION to do what it says on the
>> tin; i.e. set the version number that appears after the _.  It doesn't
>> follow logically (at least to me) that it also turns off parts of the
>> build.  You can already specify NO_DOCS to do just that.
>>
>> If Sun engineers want this free side-effect for their builds, it
>> should be restricted to those builds i.e. when OPENJDK is not defined
>> e.g.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/build/webrev.02/tl.patch
>>
>>>> JDK_UPDATE_VERSION has to be set for IcedTea to deal with broken
>>>> plugins which expect this (such as
>>>> http://www.java.com/en/download/help/testvm.xml).  I don't think it
>>>> follows that turning on a version setting forces documentation off.
>>>> Can we make this an #ifndef OPENJDK block?
>>> Strange use of JDK_UPDATE_VERSION if you ask me.
>>>
>> The issue was discussed again recently on the IcedTea list:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2009-December/007712.html
>> It now appears a JDK_UPDATE_VERSION is not enough as the Sun code is
>> looking for update 16 or above.
>>
>> I agree it's not ideal but then I'm not responsible for any broken
>> code that relies on the version number format.  Sun, however, are
>> responsible for the example cited in that mail.
>>
>> I would expect JDK_UPDATE_VERSION to set the version number.  I
>> wouldn't expect it to start altering other parts of the build,
>> especially when the same can be achieved by other options.
>>
>>> Why not just 'make GENERATE_DOCS=true' with the IcedTea builds?
>>> Or am I missing the point?
>> I guess we could, but it seems the wrong way to approach this to me.
>> It would make more sense to restrict this side-effecting behaviour to
>> just those builds that expect it i.e. Sun's proprietary non-OPENJDK
>> builds.  We already have a large number of variables for IcedTea
>> builds; having to maintain yet another just so Sun builds can run with
>> one less seems the wrong approach to me.
>>
>> Equally, if an arbitrary user builds OpenJDK, and sets
>> JDK_UPDATE_VERSION for whatever reason, ar they really going to expect
>> it to stop generating documentation?
>>
>>> What exactly is it that JDK_UPDATE_VERSION provides for IcedTea builds?
>>>
>> It sets the update part of the version number so we get 1.6.0_0 or
>> 1.7.0_0 rather than just 1.6.0 or 1.7.0.  As the email link above
>> explains in more detail, some applications/applets expect the version
>> number to have this update part (and even for it to be >0 in some
>> cases).
>>
>>> -kto
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew :-)
>>
>> Free Java Software Engineer
>> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
>>
>> Support Free Java!
>> Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
>> http://openjdk.java.net
>>
>> PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
>> Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
>>
> 
> You're right in that you didn't add this, just moved it to a different
> file.  I found, when attempting to get IcedTea7 to build b78, that
> we've been patching it out since 2008:
> 
> 2008-06-29  Matthias Klose  <doko at ubuntu.com>
> 
>         * patches/icedtea-jdk-docs-target.patch: New.
> 
> I think http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/build/webrev.02/tl.patch
> gives an acceptable compromise and shouldn't break Sun's proprietary
> builds.  Can I have a bug ID to push this?

6914986: Make sure openjdk doc generation not turned off with JDK_UPDATE_VERSION

consider it reviewed.

-kto