About the target/host situation

[David Holmes]

Magnus,

On 12/06/2012 6:06 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> On 2012-06-12 06:59, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 12/06/2012 2:30 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-04 11:47, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>> Fredrik and others, please note that this does not mean that this is
>>>> the final say in the discussion! It just means that we need to resolve
>>>> the current block on our work in build-infra. The fact that either
>>>> this or Fredriks solution is the current one in build-infra right now
>>>> should carry no weight when coming to a final decision on how the
>>>> matters should be! As far as this is a part of the discussion, it is
>>>> to bring an example on how the --jdk-target option could be
>>>> implemented.
>>>
>>> Fredrik, Erik and I have now agreed to use the term "OpenJDK target"
>>
>> Ummmm but I don't build OpenJDK. I suggest dropping the "Open" part.
>
> That was a proposal as well during our discussions. However, it was
> perceived that "jdk" was somewhat ambigious: does it refer to the
> product as a whole, or just the jdk forest? "openjdk", on the other
> hand, could not be misunderstood as the jdk forest.

I don't buy the ambiguous argument. This terminology is incorrect and 
unnecessarily verbose.

David
-----

> Granted, when adding closed sources you build a product that is not
> OpenJDK, but I think you can manage that discrepance anyway. :) Try to
> rejoice in the fact that the target is not named "host", just as you
> wanted, and don't get caught up in the "open" prefix. :-)
>
> /Magnus