[PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling

[Severin Gehwolf]

Hi,

Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you?

Thanks,
Severin


On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Build changes look ok to me.
> 
> /Erik
> 
> 
> On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some
> > tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build
> > would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks
> > tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native
> > libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should
> > download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
> > 
> > pre:
> > $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty
> > java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
> > os.arch = ppc64
> > 
> > post:
> > $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty
> > java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
> > os.arch = ppc64le
> > 
> > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139
> > webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/
> > 
> > Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev
> > for JDK/hotspot changes.
> > 
> > This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK
> > 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Severin
> > 
> 
>