Need reviewer - minor top level make changes

[Kelly O'Hair]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2010/1/7 Kelly O'Hair <Kelly.Ohair at sun.com>:
>> 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
>>
> 
> Thanks :)
> 
> Is it tl or build for this one?

Either one should be fine. Whatever is easier for you.
Not sure what the tl schedule is right now.

-kto

> 
> Cheers,