"j2sdk-image" and new build system

[David Holmes]

On 24/02/2013 4:19 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
> <mailto:Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 23/02/2013 10:29, David Holmes wrote:
>
>
>         Just be aware there's a lot more involved in doing this than
>         just changing one a name in a makefile.
>
>     You beat to me too! Yes, there are likely a lot of scripts and paths
>     that assume the image name is j2sdk-image or j2re-image so renaming
>     will be a bit disruptive.
>
>
> Sure, but you are *already* making a huge disruptive change to build
> directory layout.  People have to change their scripts from
> linux-amd64/j2sdk-image
> to
> linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/j2sdk-image

Not quite. You can still have full control of the first directory 
component [1] so for most builds there is no change there at all and no 
disruption.

The additional images directory is also easily accommodated. 
Scripts/processes that copy the images from path-A to path-B just need 
to tweak path-A. But if you rename the actual j2sdk-image etc you have 
to update everything that uses path-B.

> Especially the repetition of "image" seems wrong in the new layout.

The new build tries to have a top-level directory for each major build 
component. Hence images has its own directory.

David
-----

[1] Simplest way is:
 > mkdir mydir
 > cd mydir
 > <path-to-configure>/configure



> Why not
> images/j2sdk-image
> to
> images/jdk
>
> If you really want to keep "j2sdk-image", move it back into its parent
> directory.
>
>     Also I think the initial goal of the new build system was to get it
>     to the point where it generated the "same bits" as the old build. I
>     assume this is why the new build went for the same directory names
>     as the old build (and probably because of scripts depending on the
>     name too).
>
>
> Hopefully the new build system will lead to an increase, not decrease,
> in overall sanity.