[RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[Thomas Stüfe]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
wrote:

> On 31/08/2017 5:08 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>> On 08/31/2017 08:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>
>>> BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the separate, hardly-maintained bsd-port
>>> only. :-(
>>>
>>
>> That's what I guess as well after seeing that the "bsd" directories within
>> the "jdk" structure are missing in the mainline tree. Then I checked what
>> NetBSD is using as upstream and saw the reference bsd-port.
>>
>> I posted a set of patches for jdk9 mainline for building jdk9 on BSD,
>>> that was
>>> rejected. :( They ended up in the bsd-port, but this has not been pushed
>>> upstream
>>> to the mainline, and the bsd port is only sporadically updated from
>>> mainline.
>>>
>>
>> I think it won't hurt anyone if those patches are pushed mainline. It
>> seems that
>> most of the stuff lives inside its own directories, doesn't it? If so, I
>> don't
>> see any risk of breakage.
>>
>> Since those changes are either a) general cleanups that all platforms
>>> should
>>> benefit from, or b) no-risk bsd-only changes, I'd really like to see
>>> them go into
>>> the mainline build system.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. I'm all for merging them. If someone has invested so much work
>> into
>> the port, it shouldn't just go to bitrot in bsd-port. It should be merged
>> into the mainline tree.
>>
>> But for that to happen, we apparently need to change some policy about
>>> accepting code for platforms not tested by Oracle. :-(
>>>
>>
>> I don't see why that should be necessary. I have sent in patches for
>> linux-sparc
>> and linux-zero in the past weeks and they were merged without a hitch.
>>
>
> Those were very minor patches of two quite distinct kinds:
>
> 1. Make zero work on platform Z
>
> This is something we can easily accommodate, and it generally doesn't take
> much effort or disturb other platforms.
>
> 2. Make the linux-sparc port work again
>
> This is somewhat more significant and does require community support as
> otherwise this is an "orphaned" port. The fact it already exists and was
> starting to bit rot means the acceptance bar is somewhat lower. But there
> is still a question mark over longer term commitment from the community for
> supporting this port.
>
> Patric told me on hotspot-dev that Oracle has no problems accepting these
>> patches if they are maintained and tested by the community.
>>
>
> A full BSD port, not just Zero on BSD, requires a non-trivial level of
> commitment from the community in terms of maintaining it etc, before it can
> come into mainline. That is why we have the bsd-port project - to establish
> that community and commitment. But AFAICS, and from what was said when
> Magnus proposed this, that community is not active.
>
> So unless something significant has changed with regards to the bsd-port
> project and its supporting community, a full BSD port in mainline seems
> unlikely.
>
>
FWIW, I would love a first class BSD port. I think BSD is a valuable
platform to have.

The fact that different people at different times independently from each
other try to make this work, and that there seems to be an active community
of OpenJDK porters for BSD, seems to indicate there is enough interest to
keep this going. And then, maybe I am naive, but we are not talking about
new CPUs or a new GC, just another Posix compliant OS very similar to the
existing OSX. Would this really be so much effort?



> But this should be discussed on porters-dev at openjdk.java.net so that the
> porters group can have its say.
>
>
Unfortunately, porters-dev is a ghost town. What about bsd-dev?

Cheers, Thomas



> Cheers,
> David
> -----
>
>
> The changes, btw, look good.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Btw, I was chatting about OpenJDK on BSD yesterday on #netbsd in IRC
>> and I have learned that there are also several porters actively
>> working on OpenJDK on BSD. I will contact those guys and get them
>> to join build-dev@ and hotspot-dev at .
>>
>> There are definitely enough qualified and motivated developers who
>> want to work on OpenJDK for the platforms Oracle doesn't officially
>> support.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>