About the target/host situation

[David Holmes]

On 12/06/2012 10:12 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm more worried that this sounds like you're making changes but not testing them on
> OpenJDK.  Is this the case?

What do you mean?

David
-----


>> 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
>>
>