[8u] RFR Backport JDK-8154313, Generated javadoc scattered all over the place

[Andrew Hughes]

On 03/06/2020 21:01, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> ping?
> On 5/21/20 8:43 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> ping
>>
>> please do not let it rot!
>> On 5/19/20 2:32 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> On 5/19/20 9:44 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/20 3:24 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/05/2020 15:03, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>>>> hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is third, hopefully last, reincarnation of this backport.
>>>>>> Refreshed - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvanek/8154313/ - as it was approved last time.
>>>>>> It is  jdk11-like version of the patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However after above was agreed, an issue concerning backport of
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168772 (
>>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/rev/db49e4e492e0 ), which is quite huge was raised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is no intention to backport 8168772  ever, then my current patch is good to go. If not,
>>>>>> then the 8154313 (http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/rev/ec69c5bf68a6) should be applied as it was
>>>>>> commited, but 8168772 have to follow after it.
>>>>>> I do not feel exactly voulenteered ino backporting of 8168772
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanx!
>>>>>>   J.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for looking into this again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll have a look at the feasibility of JDK-8168772 and get back to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm tending towards just applying this as previously reviewed, but it
>>>>> may be that JDK-8168772, though long, applies nearly cleanly and it's
>>>>> preferable to have 8u & 11u working the same.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Will try that too. Thanx!
>>> Afer applying 8154313 as jdk8 as possible, applying 8168772:
>>>
>>> atching file common/autoconf/generated-configure.sh
>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 5093.
>>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file common/autoconf/generated-configure.sh.rej
>>> patching file common/autoconf/spec.gmk.in
>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 265.
>>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 788.
>>> 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file common/autoconf/spec.gmk.in.rej
>>> patching file make/Javadoc.gmk
>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 22.
>>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 171.
>>> Hunk #3 FAILED at 355.
>>> Hunk #4 FAILED at 1742.
>>> 4 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file make/Javadoc.gmk.rej
>>> patching file make/Main.gmk
>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 341.
>>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 683.
>>> Hunk #3 FAILED at 812.
>>> Hunk #4 FAILED at 860.
>>> Hunk #5 FAILED at 872.
>>> Hunk #6 FAILED at 911.
>>> 6 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file make/Main.gmk.rej
>>> can't find file to patch at input line 2731
>>> Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
>>> The text leading up to this was:
>>> --------------------------
>>> |diff -r f37e46c2e8f6 -r db49e4e492e0 make/MainSupport.gmk
>>> |--- a/make/MainSupport.gmk	Wed Oct 26 09:44:20 2016 +0200
>>> |+++ b/make/MainSupport.gmk	Wed Oct 26 16:00:26 2016 +0200
>>> --------------------------
>>> File to patch:
>>> Skip this patch? [y] y
>>> Skipping patch.
>>> 2 out of 2 hunks ignored
>>>
>>>
>>> That backport moreover means to rewrite it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

I haven't had a chance to look at JDK-8168772. I'll try some time in the
8u272 dev cycle, but this next month will be busy with the CPU.

Yeah, the build systems have diverged a lot, though I'm surprised there
is so much change here just in OpenJDK 9.  If JDK-8154313 is applied
first, why do we need JDK-8168772?

Thanks,
-- 
Andrew :)

Senior Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222