JDK-8025705
David Holmes
david.holmes at oracle.com
Thu Apr 24 00:51:22 UTC 2014
On 23/04/2014 9:23 PM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
> Yes, I did consider using some ifeq tricks like that -- but they are
> rather ugly and unreadable and have the same problem that you want to
> avoid: adding distribution-specific code into the open-source makefiles.
I see no short-term fix for this beyond what I suggested, as an
alternate to putting in the ORACLEJDK variable. But you would have to
maintain that change in your private repo - I see no way around that.
Given that:
ifndef OPENJDK
actually, implicitly means
ifdef ORACLEJDK
then all non-Oracle builds must presently declare themselves to be
OPENJDK implementations. To which they can add specific customizations.
> My goal here is to have the public OpenJDK makefiles be in a state such
> that custom distribution code can be added (in make/closed, src/closed,
> or some such alternative location) without having to perform surgery on
> the Makefiles and maintain the private changes. The mechanism is
> already in place,it's just some leftover OracleJDK that hasn't made it
> out of the open makefiles yet. If we could just cordon that off
> somehow, then anyone could make a custom distribution by augmenting
> OpenJDK with 'closed' style repositories -- without having to maintain
> private, unrelated edits to jdk Makefiles.
You simply need to leave OPENJDK set to true to achieve that cordoning off.
Even if we move all OracleJDK specific stuff out of the open makefiles a
completely clean separation may not be possible:
- the customization hooks can not be everywhere and different
customizations may have different requirements
- if there are chunks of OpenJDK code (ie code currently part of both
OpenJDK and Oracle JDK) that are not wanted in your custom build then
you will still need to maintain private makefile changes to exclude
them. To fix this will need additional "modularization" of the build
with feature-selection (though not in a way that would violate the
platform specifications).
David
-----
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:10 AM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> Okay ... so you don't set OPENJDK and thus from the make logic
> perspective you are implicitly ORACLE_JDK. So first question: why
> don't you set OPENJDK and then add blocks guarded by MY_JDK (or
> whatever) for your custom stuff?
>
> Second, the way to get a disjunction is to use the text functions eg
> (untested but you should get the gist):
>
> // OR
> ifeq (true, findstring( $(OPENJDK) $(MYJDK), true)
>
> // not-OR
> ifneq (true, findstring( $(OPENJDK) $(MYJDK), true)
>
> It's not as trivial as || etc but not too horrendously ugly :)
>
> Does this help?
>
> David
>
>
> On 22/04/2014 11:10 PM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Most of the problem resides in jdk/make, in the following files:
> make/CompileDemos.gmk
> make/CompileJavaClasses.gmk
> make/CopyFiles.gmk
> make/CopyIntoClasses.gmk
> make/CreateSecurityJars.gmk
> make/gensrc/GensrcIcons.gmk
> make/Images.gmk
> make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk
>
> Biggest offender is problem CopyFiles.gmk (but
> CreateSecurityJars.gmk
> has a bit too). Basically in each situation where there's a "ifndef
> OPENJDK", it encloses a block of code that access something in
> src/closed or make/closed.
>
> I did initially try to set a new variable in our build in an
> attempt to
> replace these areas with something like:
> ifndef OPENJDK && ifndef PRIVATEJDK
>
> ... but there's apparently no convenient way of doing that in
> makefiles
> (conjunctions and disjunctions at the preprocessing level aren't
> available -- and the workarounds are rather goofy). Duplicating the
> OPENJDK only code quickly became unreasonable too -- a few of
> the code
> blocks are one-liners, but there's a bunch that are much more
> involved
> clauses.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:23 AM, David Holmes
> <david.holmes at oracle.com <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.__com
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>> wrote:
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> Sorry I have very limited cycles right now, and just had a
> 4 day
> Easter break with anther long weekend ahead :)
>
> You are right that the src/closed -> CUSTOM_SRC_DIR is somewhat
> tangential to your issue.
>
> The existence checks I suggested would be a check for whatever
> file/directory is enough to indicate the "feature" is present.
>
> Most uses of OPENJDK are really used to indicate
> !ORACLE_JDK, so
> introducing a third variation doesn't really fit.
>
> Can you give a concrete example of something that
> highlights this
> problem for you and how your proposal addresses it? I may get a
> better sense of things with specifics rather than trying to
> generalize - because I don't see a general solution without
> a lot of
> refactoring.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On 22/04/2014 2:42 PM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
>
> Hi Mark, et al.,
>
> The sad reality of the situation is that there is indeed
> Oracle-specific
> code in the OpenJDK makefiles, and this code interferes
> with our
> customization of the JDK. Adding temporary signposts
> to allow
> us (and
> others) to avoid this code will not make things worse. It
> doesn't have
> to be a distribution name -- we call it whatever you like:
> TO_BE_REMOVED, KEITH_IS_A_PITA, whatever -- just
> something to
> latch onto
> to deactivate that code when it is not needed. This
> would provide
> immediate relief to customizing distributors and give
> Oracle
> engineers
> time to phase that code into closed makefiles (at which
> time the
> signposts can be removed completely).
>
> Taking all this code out wholesale instead would be
> great, and
> this is
> something I am totally willing to tackle and put the
> effort in
> on if I
> was in a position to do so. Unfortunately, since this
> is not fully
> open-source, I can't do the refactoring needed to move
> this code
> into
> the closed directories. And I though I could easily
> strip the
> code from
> OpenJDK, this would totally muck with Oracle
> distribution so any
> patch I
> would submit would surely be immediately rejected.
>
> Considering that the code is question has been in
> OpenJDK for
> about 8
> years now, I think it's safe to assume that it's not a
> high priority
> item for Oracle engineers to get this fixed. Which is
> totally
> fine, IMO
> -- it's very much a tenant of open source development
> that he
> who has
> the itch ought to be the one to scratch it, and different
> entities are
> expected to have different sets of priorities. No
> doubt I'm
> probably
> the first one to complain about this :)
>
> Unfortunately, I'm also in the unfortunate position of
> having an
> itch
> (and willing fingernails), but an inability to scratch it.
>
> So, where do we go from here and how can I help in this
> effort? I
> really do want to help, as this is an immediate problem
> for me and I
> can't afford to wait years for it to get fixed. I
> still think that
> signposts are a very reasonable compromise given that:
> (1) It is something that can be done independently and
> doesn't
> require
> Oracle engineering resources (other than reviews and
> shepherding)
> (2) It does not interfere with efforts to move closed
> code out of
> OpenJDK makefiles
> (3) it can be done quickly
> (4) It does not avoid the Makefile-checking for
> existence of
> required
> files/directories (which reduces build-brittleness)
>
> Mark/Dave, if I can't convince you that we should take this
> path, can
> you please suggest an alternative design? I'm not
> picky -- if
> we can
> come up with something else that works then let's do it
> and I'll
> start
> on it right away.
>
> --
> - Keith (itchy)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:23 PM,
> <mark.reinhold at oracle.com <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.com>
> <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.__com
> <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.com>>
> <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.
> <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.>____com
>
> <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.__com
> <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.com>>>> wrote:
>
> 2014/4/16 14:52 -0700, david.holmes at oracle.com
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.__com
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.>____com
>
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.__com
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>>:
>
> > src/closed is Oracle's "custom source" location
> (hotspot
> calls it
> > alt_src). If we never saw src/closed in the
> makefiles, only
> > CUSTOM_SRC_DIR, and guarded with an existence
> test for a
> specific
> > directory/file, then that should address your
> problem.
> That would
> be a
> > first step in moving things to the custom makefiles
> where they
> belong.
> >
> > I'm opposed to the ORACLEJDK variable because I
> want to
> maintain the
> > pressure to get this fixed properly. If we hack
> around
> it then it
> will
> > never get cleaned up.
>
> I think it's wrong, in principle, for OpenJDK
> source code
> to contain
> identifiers naming specific vendors of JDK
> implementations.
> We're not
> quite there at the moment, but let's please not
> add any more.
>
> - Mark
>
>
>
>
More information about the build-dev
mailing list