RFR: AARCH64: Top-level JDK changes

[Volker Simonis]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Erik Joelsson
<erik.joelsson at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-10 10:27, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would certainly like to have these files updated, but unfortunately the
>>> license on these files changed from GPL2 to GPL3. This essentially means
>>> that the switch is non trivial from a legal perspective and the
>>> impression
>>> I've received when I last inquired about updating these files was that
>>> it's
>>> unlikely to ever happen unless a very strong case can be presented for
>>> why
>>> it's needed.
>>>
>>> So the reason we have the over engineered solution for config.guess is
>>> simply that it's much easier than getting legal approval for updating
>>> these
>>> files.
>>
>> OK, but in that case I don't see any reason for keeping this
>> "over-engineered" solution at all. If there will not be any pulls from
>> upstream anyway then there's no reason for keeping these file
>> untouched. I'd propose then to just remove the wrappers and do all the
>> chenges right in the corresponding files (of course that's not the
>> topic of this change but should be done separately).
>
> And again, the reason we didn't change the existing file but instead wrapped
> it, was that we don't have explicit legal approval for doing derivative work
> for these 3rd party files. Maybe it's ok, maybe it's not, I will not be the
> person saying it is ok.
>

OK, now I got it. I thought we just use the wrappers because we want
to easily integrate the upstream versions. But instead it is only
because we don't want to edit these files because of legal
uncertainties.

So in that case that means we're also not allowed to edit 'config.sub'
and have to create a wrapper for it, right?

Volker

> /Erik
>
>> Regards,
>> Volker
>>
>>> /Erik
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2014-11-07 19:53, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/07/2014 06:00 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. pull in the new version of config.guess and config.sub from [1]
>>>>> which already seem to have the changes you need.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm all in favour of point three which would also allow us to get rid
>>>>> of some of the hacks which are currently in config.guess. And now, as
>>>>> we're still early in the jdk9 development the risk of doing this seems
>>>>> minimal, but let's see what the build-dev guy say?
>>>>
>>>> So am I.  build-dev people, do you want me to import config.guess from
>>>> upstream?  I can create a new issue.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew.
>>>>
>