From mark at klomp.org Wed Sep 5 19:54:00 2007 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:54:00 +0200 Subject: Building plugin and javaws on Linux Message-ID: <1189022041.3813.52.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi Alexander, > I was successfull in building openjdk b18 on my openSUSE 10.2 build service > account, but unfortunately the Mozilla plugin and javaws were not build. > > Any idea how to include this to the build. The binary distribution has both so > I think there has to be a switch somewhere. Unfortunately the plugin and webstart sources haven't been released. For IcedTea we converted gcjwebplugin to work with openjdk. http://fitzsim.org/blog/?p=21 That works pretty nicely. It was integrated into IcedTea 1.3 http://langel.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/icedtea-13-released/ And now actually ships with Fedora RawHide http://spindazzle.org/greenblog/index.php?/archives/73-IcedTea-is-Fedorable.html We haven't integrated a free replacement for webstart yet. But with GNU Classpath we have been using NetX, which is free and works although only implements an older jnlp version: http://jnlp.sourceforge.net/netx/ Cheers, mark From Sven.Gothel at Sun.COM Wed Sep 12 03:20:20 2007 From: Sven.Gothel at Sun.COM (Sven Gothel) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:20:20 -0600 Subject: Fwd: j2se/win32/cygwin builds - make-3.81 -> make-3.80 downgrade Message-ID: <200709112120.20994.Sven.Gothel@sun.com> Hi all, Kelly mentioned, I may want to send you this info. Cheers, Sven +++ On Tuesday 11 September 2007 at 20:52, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > It's mentioned in the GNU Make section: > > https://openjdk.dev.java.net/source/browse/*checkout*/openjdk/jdk/trunk/README-builds.html?rev=245#gmake > awesome - thanks. Well, I guess this will not be the first time I fall into well known pits ;-) You may want to elaborate the 'WARNING' message in your readme, or may be add URL for make-3.80-1. As you wish. Thanks. -Sven ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: j2se/win32/cygwin builds - make-3.81 -> make-3.80 downgrade Date: Tuesday 11 September 2007 From: Sven Gothel To: Kelly O'Hair I encountered this 'cygwin' make-3.81 problem ;-) Current 'make' does not support the dos filenames anymore, therefor the error message 'multiple target' appears .. I have found this 'workaround', downgrade make-3.81 to 3.80, see below. I am not aware of a beauty workaround here, since 'cygpath' and other shell 'helpers' would force to change the makefiles. As far as I remember .. I used different PATH environment variables for win32/cygwin compilations, where native win32 tools were involved, e.g. MSVC++. One for UNIX'ish tools, derived from the DOS'ish one, e.g: PATH_LALA1_UNIX=$(shell cygpath $(PATH_LALA1_DOS)) You may want to add this to: https://openjdk.dev.java.net/source/browse/*checkout*/openjdk/jdk/trunk/README-builds.html?rev=245#windows Cheers, Sven +++ cygwin make >In short: make 3.81 intentionally removed support for DOS paths; use >make 3.80 or the newer version (make-3.81-2?). http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Windows_build_prerequisites_using_cygwin#make http://cygwin.paracoda.com/release/make/make-3.80-1.tar.bz2 +++ ------------------------------------------------------- From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Wed Sep 12 19:18:19 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:18:19 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Mercurial Transition Update 2 Message-ID: <46E83B7B.70908@sun.com> Update 2 on the Mercurial Transition. Build 20 will have a separate langtools tree! http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kellyohair/archive/2007/09/openjdk_mercuri_2.html -kto From ted at tedneward.com Thu Sep 13 07:02:54 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:02:54 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Mercurial Transition Update 2 In-Reply-To: <46E83B7B.70908@sun.com> References: <46E83B7B.70908@sun.com> Message-ID: <07d401c7f5d4$1d7f43a0$587dcae0$@com> Any estimates on when the Mercurial repositories will be open to the public? Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev- > bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Kelly O'Hair > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:18 PM > To: build-dev at openjdk.java.net > Subject: OpenJDK Mercurial Transition Update 2 > > Update 2 on the Mercurial Transition. > > Build 20 will have a separate langtools tree! > > > http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kellyohair/archive/2007/09/openjdk_mercuri > _2.html > > > -kto > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1003 - Release Date: > 9/12/2007 10:56 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1003 - Release Date: 9/12/2007 10:56 AM From mr at sun.com Thu Sep 13 15:57:26 2007 From: mr at sun.com (Mark Reinhold) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:57:26 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Mercurial Transition Update 2 In-Reply-To: ted@tedneward.com; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:02:54 PDT; <07d401c7f5d4$1d7f43a0$587dcae0$@com> Message-ID: <20070913155726.6560C3AA0@eggemoggin.niobe.net> > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:02:54 -0700 > From: Ted Neward > Any estimates on when the Mercurial repositories will be open to the public? Hopefully some time in October. - Mark From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Thu Sep 13 16:17:57 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:17:57 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Mercurial Transition Update 2 In-Reply-To: <07d401c7f5d4$1d7f43a0$587dcae0$@com> References: <46E83B7B.70908@sun.com> <07d401c7f5d4$1d7f43a0$587dcae0$@com> Message-ID: <46E962B5.7020702@sun.com> I don't know how long it will take to have all the various repositories from the various levels or integration areas exposed. But we should be able to have at least one 'read-only' set of repositories available fairly quickly, probably the MASTER level repositories. The MASTER gets the bulk changes from the team integrators on a daily basis and is what is used as the source of the build promotions. But keep in mind that we have hundreds of jdk developers that will be switching from TeamWare to Mercurial all at once, hopefully not wanting to burn me at the stake. So it may get hectic for a bit around here as we get things right and ready for public consumption. ;^) Build 23 is our primary Mercurial target, which is roughly Oct 26 assuming all goes well, so hopefully just days after that. Halloween maybe? Seems appropriate, it's scaring me. ;^) -kto Ted Neward wrote: > Any estimates on when the Mercurial repositories will be open to the public? > > Ted Neward > Java, .NET, XML Services > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > http://www.tedneward.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev- >> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Kelly O'Hair >> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:18 PM >> To: build-dev at openjdk.java.net >> Subject: OpenJDK Mercurial Transition Update 2 >> >> Update 2 on the Mercurial Transition. >> >> Build 20 will have a separate langtools tree! >> >> >> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kellyohair/archive/2007/09/openjdk_mercuri >> _2.html >> >> >> -kto >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1003 - Release Date: >> 9/12/2007 10:56 AM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1003 - Release Date: 9/12/2007 > 10:56 AM > > From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Thu Sep 13 16:32:34 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:32:34 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Mercurial Transition Update 2 In-Reply-To: <20070913155726.6560C3AA0@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20070913155726.6560C3AA0@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <46E96622.5070107@sun.com> Halloween is in Oct. ;^) But if we can make it sooner we certainly will. -kto Mark Reinhold wrote: >> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:02:54 -0700 >> From: Ted Neward > >> Any estimates on when the Mercurial repositories will be open to the public? > > Hopefully some time in October. > > - Mark From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Sep 14 00:48:50 2007 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:48:50 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop Message-ID: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> Building the b20 OpenJDK source drop will fail, as follows: gnumake[3]: Entering directory `/BUILD_AREA/openjdk/b20/openjdk/j2se/make/javax/sound' Makefile:64: ../../common/BinaryPlugs.gmk: No such file or directory gnumake[3]: *** No rule to make target `../../common/BinaryPlugs.gmk'. Stop. The fix is a one-liner in .../j2se/make/javax/sound/Makefile The line: include $(BUILDDIR)/common/BinaryPlugs.gmk should be: include $(BUILDDIR)/common/internal/BinaryPlugs.gmk More info at: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6604479 Bug 6604479 was filed today to track this issue. It should be visible on bugs.sun.com in one or two business days. -Xiomara From Tim.Bell at Sun.COM Sat Sep 15 21:44:46 2007 From: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM (Tim Bell) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:44:46 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: > > Building the b20 OpenJDK source drop will fail, as follows: > > gnumake[3]: Entering directory > `/BUILD_AREA/openjdk/b20/openjdk/j2se/make/javax/sound' > Makefile:64: ../../common/BinaryPlugs.gmk: No such file or directory > gnumake[3]: *** No rule to make target > `../../common/BinaryPlugs.gmk'. Stop. As it turns out we missed two files. Here is the patch information. You will need this if you are building JDK b20: --- old/make/javax/sound/jsoundhs/Makefile Fri Sep 14 13:40:16 2007 +++ new/make/javax/sound/jsoundhs/Makefile Fri Sep 14 13:40:16 2007 @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ build: import-binary-plug-jsound-library -include $(BUILDDIR)/common/BinaryPlugs.gmk +include $(BUILDDIR)/common/internal/BinaryPlugs.gmk else # OPENJDK --- old/make/javax/sound/Makefile Fri Sep 14 13:40:17 2007 +++ new/make/javax/sound/Makefile Fri Sep 14 13:40:17 2007 @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ # copy closed .class files build: import-binary-plug-sound-classes -include $(BUILDDIR)/common/BinaryPlugs.gmk +include $(BUILDDIR)/common/internal/BinaryPlugs.gmk endif # OPENJDK Hope this helps- Tim From ted at tedneward.com Sat Sep 22 07:54:53 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:54:53 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> Message-ID: <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> Here's potentially a dumb question: is there any chance of putting the BinaryPlugs into the source repository? I pulled down b20, didn't check to see if the binary plugs had changed and kicked off a build, and it failed due to some changes in the binary plugs directory structure (AFAICT). (1) Am I correct in thinking the binary plugs stuff changed around a touch, and (2) If that is the case, is there any chance of putting them into the SVN (or Mercurial) repository, so when I do a source refresh, I'll get the right bits even as they're changing around? Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev- > bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Tim Bell > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 2:45 PM > To: build-dev at openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source > drop > > Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: > > > > Building the b20 OpenJDK source drop will fail, as follows: > > > > gnumake[3]: Entering directory > > `/BUILD_AREA/openjdk/b20/openjdk/j2se/make/javax/sound' > > Makefile:64: ../../common/BinaryPlugs.gmk: No such file or > directory > > gnumake[3]: *** No rule to make target > > `../../common/BinaryPlugs.gmk'. Stop. > > As it turns out we missed two files. Here is the patch information. > You will need this if you are building JDK b20: > > --- old/make/javax/sound/jsoundhs/Makefile Fri Sep 14 13:40:16 > 2007 > +++ new/make/javax/sound/jsoundhs/Makefile Fri Sep 14 13:40:16 > 2007 > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ > > build: import-binary-plug-jsound-library > > -include $(BUILDDIR)/common/BinaryPlugs.gmk > +include $(BUILDDIR)/common/internal/BinaryPlugs.gmk > > else # OPENJDK > > --- old/make/javax/sound/Makefile Fri Sep 14 13:40:17 2007 > +++ new/make/javax/sound/Makefile Fri Sep 14 13:40:17 2007 > @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ > # copy closed .class files > build: import-binary-plug-sound-classes > > -include $(BUILDDIR)/common/BinaryPlugs.gmk > +include $(BUILDDIR)/common/internal/BinaryPlugs.gmk > > endif # OPENJDK > > > > Hope this helps- > > Tim > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.16/1005 - Release Date: > 9/13/2007 11:45 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 12:07 PM From Tim.Bell at Sun.COM Mon Sep 24 00:23:15 2007 From: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM (Tim Bell) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:23:15 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> Message-ID: <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> Ted Neward wrote: > Here's potentially a dumb question: is there any chance of putting the > BinaryPlugs into the source repository? I pulled down b20, didn't check to > see if the binary plugs had changed and kicked off a build, and it failed > due to some changes in the binary plugs directory structure (AFAICT). The binary plugs are tightly coupled with the source tree for a given build. Mix-and-match probably won't work. > (1) Am I correct in thinking the binary plugs stuff changed around a touch, Very likely. There were also some non-trivial build changes in b20. > (2) If that is the case, is there any chance of putting them into the SVN > (or Mercurial) repository, so when I do a source refresh, I'll get the right > bits even as they're changing around? I'll ask about that. The binary plugs .jar file is under a different license than what you get in the openjdk-7-ea-src-b*.zip file, so that could have something to do with the separation. Tim From ted at tedneward.com Mon Sep 24 06:40:27 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:40:27 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> Message-ID: <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a different repository? I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial equivalent) and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; it's a lot more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs (particularly since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as the source does), and only then do a build. Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM [mailto:Tim.Bell at Sun.COM] > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 5:23 PM > To: Ted Neward > Cc: build-dev at openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source > drop > > Ted Neward wrote: > > Here's potentially a dumb question: is there any chance of putting > the > > BinaryPlugs into the source repository? I pulled down b20, didn't > check to > > see if the binary plugs had changed and kicked off a build, and it > failed > > due to some changes in the binary plugs directory structure (AFAICT). > > The binary plugs are tightly coupled with the source tree for a given > build. > Mix-and-match probably won't work. > > > (1) Am I correct in thinking the binary plugs stuff changed around a > touch, > > Very likely. There were also some non-trivial build changes in b20. > > > (2) If that is the case, is there any chance of putting them into the > SVN > > (or Mercurial) repository, so when I do a source refresh, I'll get > the right > > bits even as they're changing around? > > I'll ask about that. The binary plugs .jar file is under a different > license > than what you get in the openjdk-7-ea-src-b*.zip file, so that could > have something > to do with the separation. > > Tim > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 12:07 PM From twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at Mon Sep 24 09:03:14 2007 From: twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at (Christian Thalinger) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:03:14 +0200 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> Message-ID: <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote: > If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a different > repository? > > I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial equivalent) > and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; it's a lot > more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs (particularly > since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as the source > does), and only then do a build. That's wrong. Every source build has it's matching binary plug. See: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ - twisti From robilad at kaffe.org Mon Sep 24 10:00:15 2007 From: robilad at kaffe.org (Dalibor Topic) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> Message-ID: Ted Neward writes: > > If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a different > repository? > > I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial equivalent) > and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; it's a lot > more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs (particularly > since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as the source > does), and only then do a build. Hi Ted, The naming scheme of source & binary bundles on http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ should hopefully make it easy enough to write a script that fetches the appropriate bits, given a build number and its date, if all you want to do is to build the current openjdk for your platform, and test it. cheers, dalibor topic From roman.kennke at aicas.com Tue Sep 25 10:22:56 2007 From: roman.kennke at aicas.com (Roman Kennke) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:22:56 +0200 Subject: Patch for fixing build Message-ID: <1190715777.10886.8.camel@mercury> Hi, A clean checkout of the latest OpenJDK didn't build for me because 2 Makefiles have a wrong path to BinaryPlugs.gmk. The attached patch fixes the problem. Cheers, Roman -- Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Roman Kennke, Software Engineer, http://kennke.org aicas Allerton Interworks Computer Automated Systems GmbH Haid-und-Neu-Stra?e 18 * D-76131 Karlsruhe * Germany http://www.aicas.com * Tel: +49-721-663 968-0 USt-Id: DE216375633, Handelsregister HRB 109481, AG Karlsruhe Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dr. James J. Hunt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: openjdk-build-patch.diff Type: text/x-patch Size: 828 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Tue Sep 25 22:50:20 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:50:20 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Mercurial Transition Update 3 Message-ID: <46F990AC.1040508@sun.com> Update 3 on the Mercurial Transition. http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kellyohair/archive/2007/09/openjdk_mercuri_3.html -kto From ted at tedneward.com Wed Sep 26 02:41:23 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:41:23 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> If they're going to change with every build release, then it's even MORE important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository. Otherwise, the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository (rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out the window when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs. I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source control that states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in the source repository", can I? Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at] > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM > To: Ted Neward > Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net > Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source > drop > > On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote: > > If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a different > > repository? > > > > I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial > equivalent) > > and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; it's a > lot > > more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs > (particularly > > since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as the > source > > does), and only then do a build. > > That's wrong. Every source build has it's matching binary plug. See: > > http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ > > - twisti > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 12:07 PM From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Wed Sep 26 03:12:06 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:12:06 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> Message-ID: <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> I would love for these binary plugs to go away, and second best, make them trivially available, but we are in legal territory here. I will bring up this issue and see if we can't do what you suggest, but I am not a lawyer, no promises. They are a royal pain, no argument there. -kto Ted Neward wrote: > If they're going to change with every build release, then it's even MORE > important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository. Otherwise, > the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository > (rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out the window > when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs. > > I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source control that > states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in the source > repository", can I? > > Ted Neward > Java, .NET, XML Services > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > http://www.tedneward.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at] >> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM >> To: Ted Neward >> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net >> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source >> drop >> >> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote: >>> If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a different >>> repository? >>> >>> I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial >> equivalent) >>> and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; it's a >> lot >>> more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs >> (particularly >>> since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as the >> source >>> does), and only then do a build. >> That's wrong. Every source build has it's matching binary plug. See: >> >> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ >> >> - twisti >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: >> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 > 12:07 PM > > From ted at tedneward.com Wed Sep 26 04:49:12 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:49:12 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> Message-ID: <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> No promises heard, no expectations understood. :-) I personally have a hard time following the argument that says that "because we put them into our source repository, we're asserting some kind of legal license ownership" or something, but hey, I'm not a lawyer, either. :-/ Here's a Really Dumb Question(TM): Is it possible (and then, is it practical) to create a build that doesn't use any of the binary plugs stuff? A stripped-down, JVM-and-core-classes-only kind of build that just uses the core stuff that's out in the Sun-blessed open source domain? (I haven't found that I cared about any of the binary plugs-related stuff yet, so...) Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:12 PM > To: Ted Neward > Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; build-dev at openjdk.java.net; Tim.Bell at Sun.COM > Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source > drop > > I would love for these binary plugs to go away, and second best, make > them trivially available, but we are in legal territory here. > I will bring up this issue and see if we can't do what you suggest, > but I am not a lawyer, no promises. > > They are a royal pain, no argument there. > > -kto > > Ted Neward wrote: > > If they're going to change with every build release, then it's even > MORE > > important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository. > Otherwise, > > the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository > > (rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out the > window > > when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs. > > > > I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source control > that > > states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in the > source > > repository", can I? > > > > Ted Neward > > Java, .NET, XML Services > > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > > http://www.tedneward.com > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at] > >> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM > >> To: Ted Neward > >> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net > >> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK > source > >> drop > >> > >> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote: > >>> If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a different > >>> repository? > >>> > >>> I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial > >> equivalent) > >>> and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; it's > a > >> lot > >>> more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs > >> (particularly > >>> since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as the > >> source > >>> does), and only then do a build. > >> That's wrong. Every source build has it's matching binary plug. > See: > >> > >> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ > >> > >> - twisti > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > >> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > >> > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > 9/20/2007 > > 12:07 PM > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 12:07 PM From roman.kennke at aicas.com Wed Sep 26 06:51:27 2007 From: roman.kennke at aicas.com (Roman Kennke) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:51:27 +0200 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> Message-ID: <1190789487.5998.2.camel@mercury> Hi there, > Here's a Really Dumb Question(TM): Is it possible (and then, is it > practical) to create a build that doesn't use any of the binary plugs stuff? Sure, you can always try IcedTea: http://icedtea.classpath.org/ This is basically OpenJDK without these binary plugs, which are replaced by other implementations. /Roman -- Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Roman Kennke, Software Engineer, http://kennke.org aicas Allerton Interworks Computer Automated Systems GmbH Haid-und-Neu-Stra?e 18 * D-76131 Karlsruhe * Germany http://www.aicas.com * Tel: +49-721-663 968-0 USt-Id: DE216375633, Handelsregister HRB 109481, AG Karlsruhe Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dr. James J. Hunt From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Wed Sep 26 19:19:52 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:19:52 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <1190789487.5998.2.camel@mercury> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> <1190789487.5998.2.camel@mercury> Message-ID: <46FAB0D8.1000906@sun.com> But IcedTea is Linux only, and as I understand it has just stubbed out (not implemented) the various binary plugs. Is that correct? -kto Roman Kennke wrote: > Hi there, > >> Here's a Really Dumb Question(TM): Is it possible (and then, is it >> practical) to create a build that doesn't use any of the binary plugs stuff? > > Sure, you can always try IcedTea: > > http://icedtea.classpath.org/ > > This is basically OpenJDK without these binary plugs, which are replaced > by other implementations. > > /Roman > From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Wed Sep 26 19:21:16 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:21:16 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> Message-ID: <46FAB12C.8030001@sun.com> Good question... I'll explore that possibility, warn that no plugs are available but build as much as possible kind of thing, right? -kto Ted Neward wrote: > No promises heard, no expectations understood. :-) > > I personally have a hard time following the argument that says that "because > we put them into our source repository, we're asserting some kind of legal > license ownership" or something, but hey, I'm not a lawyer, either. :-/ > > Here's a Really Dumb Question(TM): Is it possible (and then, is it > practical) to create a build that doesn't use any of the binary plugs stuff? > A stripped-down, JVM-and-core-classes-only kind of build that just uses the > core stuff that's out in the Sun-blessed open source domain? (I haven't > found that I cared about any of the binary plugs-related stuff yet, so...) > > Ted Neward > Java, .NET, XML Services > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > http://www.tedneward.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:12 PM >> To: Ted Neward >> Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; build-dev at openjdk.java.net; Tim.Bell at Sun.COM >> Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source >> drop >> >> I would love for these binary plugs to go away, and second best, make >> them trivially available, but we are in legal territory here. >> I will bring up this issue and see if we can't do what you suggest, >> but I am not a lawyer, no promises. >> >> They are a royal pain, no argument there. >> >> -kto >> >> Ted Neward wrote: >>> If they're going to change with every build release, then it's even >> MORE >>> important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository. >> Otherwise, >>> the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository >>> (rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out the >> window >>> when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs. >>> >>> I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source control >> that >>> states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in the >> source >>> repository", can I? >>> >>> Ted Neward >>> Java, .NET, XML Services >>> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing >>> http://www.tedneward.com >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at] >>>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM >>>> To: Ted Neward >>>> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net >>>> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK >> source >>>> drop >>>> >>>> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote: >>>>> If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a different >>>>> repository? >>>>> >>>>> I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial >>>> equivalent) >>>>> and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; it's >> a >>>> lot >>>>> more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs >>>> (particularly >>>>> since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as the >>>> source >>>>> does), and only then do a build. >>>> That's wrong. Every source build has it's matching binary plug. >> See: >>>> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ >>>> >>>> - twisti >>>> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: >>>> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM >>>> >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: >> 9/20/2007 >>> 12:07 PM >>> >>> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: >> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 > 12:07 PM > > From roman.kennke at aicas.com Wed Sep 26 19:43:31 2007 From: roman.kennke at aicas.com (Roman Kennke) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:43:31 +0200 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <46FAB0D8.1000906@sun.com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> <1190789487.5998.2.camel@mercury> <46FAB0D8.1000906@sun.com> Message-ID: <1190835811.5998.34.camel@mercury> Hi, > But IcedTea is Linux only, and as I understand it has just stubbed out > (not implemented) the various binary plugs. Is that correct? More or less. Some binary plugs have been replaced by implementations of GNU Classpath (crypto, java.awt.image, for example), some are stubbed out and non-functional (i.e. the AA renderer). It's not necessarily Linux-only, but noone ever tried it on Windows I guess. /Roman -- Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Roman Kennke, Software Engineer, http://kennke.org aicas Allerton Interworks Computer Automated Systems GmbH Haid-und-Neu-Stra?e 18 * D-76131 Karlsruhe * Germany http://www.aicas.com * Tel: +49-721-663 968-0 USt-Id: DE216375633, Handelsregister HRB 109481, AG Karlsruhe Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dr. James J. Hunt From ted at tedneward.com Wed Sep 26 22:13:27 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:13:27 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <46FAB12C.8030001@sun.com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> <46FAB12C.8030001@sun.com> Message-ID: <114d01c8008a$79742200$6c5c6600$@com> Exactly. It might be a nice way around the binary plugs for those who don't care about that stuff. Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:21 PM > To: Ted Neward > Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; build-dev at openjdk.java.net; Tim.Bell at Sun.COM > Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source > drop > > Good question... I'll explore that possibility, warn that no plugs are > available but build as much as possible kind of thing, right? > > -kto > > Ted Neward wrote: > > No promises heard, no expectations understood. :-) > > > > I personally have a hard time following the argument that says that > "because > > we put them into our source repository, we're asserting some kind of > legal > > license ownership" or something, but hey, I'm not a lawyer, either. > :-/ > > > > Here's a Really Dumb Question(TM): Is it possible (and then, is it > > practical) to create a build that doesn't use any of the binary plugs > stuff? > > A stripped-down, JVM-and-core-classes-only kind of build that just > uses the > > core stuff that's out in the Sun-blessed open source domain? (I > haven't > > found that I cared about any of the binary plugs-related stuff yet, > so...) > > > > Ted Neward > > Java, .NET, XML Services > > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > > http://www.tedneward.com > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:12 PM > >> To: Ted Neward > >> Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; build-dev at openjdk.java.net; > Tim.Bell at Sun.COM > >> Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK > source > >> drop > >> > >> I would love for these binary plugs to go away, and second best, > make > >> them trivially available, but we are in legal territory here. > >> I will bring up this issue and see if we can't do what you suggest, > >> but I am not a lawyer, no promises. > >> > >> They are a royal pain, no argument there. > >> > >> -kto > >> > >> Ted Neward wrote: > >>> If they're going to change with every build release, then it's even > >> MORE > >>> important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository. > >> Otherwise, > >>> the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository > >>> (rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out > the > >> window > >>> when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs. > >>> > >>> I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source > control > >> that > >>> states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in > the > >> source > >>> repository", can I? > >>> > >>> Ted Neward > >>> Java, .NET, XML Services > >>> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > >>> http://www.tedneward.com > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at] > >>>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM > >>>> To: Ted Neward > >>>> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net > >>>> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK > >> source > >>>> drop > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote: > >>>>> If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a > different > >>>>> repository? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial > >>>> equivalent) > >>>>> and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; > it's > >> a > >>>> lot > >>>>> more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs > >>>> (particularly > >>>>> since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as > the > >>>> source > >>>>> does), and only then do a build. > >>>> That's wrong. Every source build has it's matching binary plug. > >> See: > >>>> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ > >>>> > >>>> - twisti > >>>> > >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >>>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > >>>> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > >>>> > >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. > >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > >> 9/20/2007 > >>> 12:07 PM > >>> > >>> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > >> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > >> > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > 9/20/2007 > > 12:07 PM > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007 12:07 PM From Tim.Bell at Sun.COM Thu Sep 27 23:02:55 2007 From: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM (Tim Bell) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:02:55 -0700 Subject: Patch for fixing build In-Reply-To: <1190715777.10886.8.camel@mercury> References: <1190715777.10886.8.camel@mercury> Message-ID: <46FC369F.3010003@sun.com> Hi Roman: > A clean checkout of the latest OpenJDK didn't build for me because 2 > Makefiles have a wrong path to BinaryPlugs.gmk. The attached patch fixes > the problem. Thank you for the patch. This is bug number 6604479: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6604479 We discovered the problem during the test builds on b20 promotion day. It was decided to go ahead and promote, but also send email to build-dev at openjdk.java.net. Here is the email thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2007-September/000262.html This build fix is in b21, which should be available today. Tim From roman.kennke at aicas.com Fri Sep 28 18:36:29 2007 From: roman.kennke at aicas.com (Roman Kennke) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:36:29 +0200 Subject: Make targets? Message-ID: <1191004589.6026.30.camel@mercury> Hi, I am looking for a make target, that only re-builds changed classes, without the need to go through a complete 'make'. Would save me a lot of time. Is this documented somewhere? My bash autocompletion gives me a big list of make targets, I tried some but many seem to need some environment variables set, that I haven't and thus fail. (for example 'make j2se-build' or 'make j2se-freshen' sounded promising). Any ideas? make help only prints very few standard options. Cheers, Roman -- Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Roman Kennke, Software Engineer, http://kennke.org aicas Allerton Interworks Computer Automated Systems GmbH Haid-und-Neu-Stra?e 18 * D-76131 Karlsruhe * Germany http://www.aicas.com * Tel: +49-721-663 968-0 USt-Id: DE216375633, Handelsregister HRB 109481, AG Karlsruhe Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dr. James J. Hunt From ted at tedneward.com Sat Sep 29 00:12:19 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:12:19 -0700 Subject: Make targets? In-Reply-To: <1191004589.6026.30.camel@mercury> References: <1191004589.6026.30.camel@mercury> Message-ID: <053501c8022d$6a7dc3b0$3f794b10$@com> What about just kicking off make in the directory in which you made your changes? I've assumed (not tried) that this would be the way to go.... Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev- > bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Roman Kennke > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:36 AM > To: build-dev > Subject: Make targets? > > Hi, > > I am looking for a make target, that only re-builds changed classes, > without the need to go through a complete 'make'. Would save me a lot > of > time. Is this documented somewhere? My bash autocompletion gives me a > big list of make targets, I tried some but many seem to need some > environment variables set, that I haven't and thus fail. (for example > 'make j2se-build' or 'make j2se-freshen' sounded promising). > > Any ideas? make help only prints very few standard options. > > Cheers, Roman > > -- > Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Roman Kennke, Software Engineer, http://kennke.org > aicas Allerton Interworks Computer Automated Systems GmbH > Haid-und-Neu-Stra?e 18 * D-76131 Karlsruhe * Germany > http://www.aicas.com * Tel: +49-721-663 968-0 > USt-Id: DE216375633, Handelsregister HRB 109481, AG Karlsruhe > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dr. James J. Hunt > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: > 9/27/2007 5:00 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007 5:00 PM From ted at tedneward.com Sat Sep 29 06:56:43 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:56:43 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <114d01c8008a$79742200$6c5c6600$@com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> <46FAB12C.8030001@sun.com> <114d01c8008a$79742200$6c5c6600$@com> Message-ID: <05be01c80265$e853fd30$b8fbf790$@com> Related question: according to make sanity, it now looks for FindBugs, but I don't find anything in the make README that describes why, or where to put the FindBugs stuff.... When did this get added? B19 or 20? Is it going to remain a part of the build going forward? Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev- > bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Ted Neward > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:13 PM > To: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM > Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net > Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source > drop > > Exactly. It might be a nice way around the binary plugs for those who > don't > care about that stuff. > > Ted Neward > Java, .NET, XML Services > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > http://www.tedneward.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:21 PM > > To: Ted Neward > > Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; build-dev at openjdk.java.net; > Tim.Bell at Sun.COM > > Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK > source > > drop > > > > Good question... I'll explore that possibility, warn that no plugs > are > > available but build as much as possible kind of thing, right? > > > > -kto > > > > Ted Neward wrote: > > > No promises heard, no expectations understood. :-) > > > > > > I personally have a hard time following the argument that says that > > "because > > > we put them into our source repository, we're asserting some kind > of > > legal > > > license ownership" or something, but hey, I'm not a lawyer, either. > > :-/ > > > > > > Here's a Really Dumb Question(TM): Is it possible (and then, is it > > > practical) to create a build that doesn't use any of the binary > plugs > > stuff? > > > A stripped-down, JVM-and-core-classes-only kind of build that just > > uses the > > > core stuff that's out in the Sun-blessed open source domain? (I > > haven't > > > found that I cared about any of the binary plugs-related stuff yet, > > so...) > > > > > > Ted Neward > > > Java, .NET, XML Services > > > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > > > http://www.tedneward.com > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:12 PM > > >> To: Ted Neward > > >> Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; build-dev at openjdk.java.net; > > Tim.Bell at Sun.COM > > >> Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK > > source > > >> drop > > >> > > >> I would love for these binary plugs to go away, and second best, > > make > > >> them trivially available, but we are in legal territory here. > > >> I will bring up this issue and see if we can't do what you > suggest, > > >> but I am not a lawyer, no promises. > > >> > > >> They are a royal pain, no argument there. > > >> > > >> -kto > > >> > > >> Ted Neward wrote: > > >>> If they're going to change with every build release, then it's > even > > >> MORE > > >>> important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository. > > >> Otherwise, > > >>> the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository > > >>> (rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out > > the > > >> window > > >>> when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs. > > >>> > > >>> I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source > > control > > >> that > > >>> states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in > > the > > >> source > > >>> repository", can I? > > >>> > > >>> Ted Neward > > >>> Java, .NET, XML Services > > >>> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > > >>> http://www.tedneward.com > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at] > > >>>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM > > >>>> To: Ted Neward > > >>>> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net > > >>>> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK > > >> source > > >>>> drop > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote: > > >>>>> If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a > > different > > >>>>> repository? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial > > >>>> equivalent) > > >>>>> and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; > > it's > > >> a > > >>>> lot > > >>>>> more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs > > >>>> (particularly > > >>>>> since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as > > the > > >>>> source > > >>>>> does), and only then do a build. > > >>>> That's wrong. Every source build has it's matching binary plug. > > >> See: > > >>>> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ > > >>>> > > >>>> - twisti > > >>>> > > >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. > > >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > >>>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release > Date: > > >>>> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > > >>>> > > >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. > > >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > >>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > > >> 9/20/2007 > > >>> 12:07 PM > > >>> > > >>> > > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > >> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > > >> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > > >> > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > > 9/20/2007 > > > 12:07 PM > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > > 9/20/2007 12:07 PM > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: > 9/20/2007 > 12:07 PM > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date: > 9/21/2007 2:02 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007 5:00 PM From ted at tedneward.com Sat Sep 29 07:44:03 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:44:03 -0700 Subject: FW: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <05ce01c8026c$8392f930$8ab8eb90$@com> When trying to build, I get an error in the langtools build, something about "globmapper not supported as part of the copy task". I'm using Ant 1.6.2, which passes make sanity. Is this a bug in the build.xml, or a bug in make sanity (meaning I need a later version of Ant)? Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: announce-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:announce- > bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:20 PM > To: announce at openjdk.java.net > Subject: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net website > > > The OpenJDK source and Jtreg binary for the promoted JDK 7 build b21 is > available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under > Source > Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 ) > > The OpenJDK sources are also available at the subversion repository > http://openjdk.dev.java.net/source/browse/openjdk > > Summary of changes: > http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b21.html > > Thanks, > -Xiomara > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.32/1033 - Release Date: > 9/27/2007 11:06 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007 5:00 PM From ted at tedneward.com Sat Sep 29 09:02:22 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:02:22 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <05ce01c8026c$8392f930$8ab8eb90$@com> References: <05ce01c8026c$8392f930$8ab8eb90$@com> Message-ID: <05d801c80277$75070fe0$5f152fa0$@com> Aha--got it. Ant 1.6.3 or higher is needed; globmapper wasn't added until then. Make sanity needs to verify this, so it's a bug in the build script. I don't have access at the moment to the bug system, so if somebody would be kind enough to report it, should be a quick fix I would think.... Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev- > bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Ted Neward > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 12:44 AM > To: build-dev at openjdk.java.net > Subject: FW: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net > website > > When trying to build, I get an error in the langtools build, something > about > "globmapper not supported as part of the copy task". I'm using Ant > 1.6.2, > which passes make sanity. Is this a bug in the build.xml, or a bug in > make > sanity (meaning I need a later version of Ant)? > > Ted Neward > Java, .NET, XML Services > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > http://www.tedneward.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: announce-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:announce- > > bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM > > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:20 PM > > To: announce at openjdk.java.net > > Subject: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net website > > > > > > The OpenJDK source and Jtreg binary for the promoted JDK 7 build b21 > is > > available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under > > Source > > Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 > ) > > > > The OpenJDK sources are also available at the subversion repository > > http://openjdk.dev.java.net/source/browse/openjdk > > > > Summary of changes: > > http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b21.html > > > > Thanks, > > -Xiomara > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.32/1033 - Release Date: > > 9/27/2007 11:06 AM > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: > 9/27/2007 > 5:00 PM > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: > 9/27/2007 5:00 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007 5:00 PM From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Sun Sep 30 01:33:53 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:33:53 -0700 Subject: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop In-Reply-To: <05be01c80265$e853fd30$b8fbf790$@com> References: <46E9DA72.7020306@Sun.COM> <46EC524E.2050304@sun.com> <083a01c7fced$df771300$9e653900$@com> <46F70373.3030706@sun.com> <0ab701c7fe75$ce4251b0$6ac6f510$@com> <1190624594.10097.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ccb01c7ffe6$c14760f0$43d622d0$@com> <46F9CE06.9000904@sun.com> <0f7c01c7fff8$99470850$cbd518f0$@com> <46FAB12C.8030001@sun.com> <114d01c8008a$79742200$6c5c6600$@com> <05be01c80265$e853fd30$b8fbf790$@com> Message-ID: <46FEFD01.4070004@sun.com> We want to start using findbugs as some kind of optional part of the build, so this was just step one. Not sure when we will hook it up. I am of the opinion that we should make the build cleaner, both in cleaning up the cc/javac/javadoc warnings, turning on maximum warnings, and running findbugs. Again, not sure when, not a minor undertaking, and it will be a global effort. I suspect Jonathan and the langtools workspace/repository will likely take the lead in this, one of the benefits of the split of sources means that the langtools team can concentrate on their own sources, and making them squeeeeeeeky clean. ;^) -kto Ted Neward wrote: > Related question: according to make sanity, it now looks for FindBugs, but I > don't find anything in the make README that describes why, or where to put > the FindBugs stuff.... When did this get added? B19 or 20? Is it going to > remain a part of the build going forward? > > Ted Neward > Java, .NET, XML Services > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > http://www.tedneward.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev- >> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Ted Neward >> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:13 PM >> To: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM >> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net >> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source >> drop >> >> Exactly. It might be a nice way around the binary plugs for those who >> don't >> care about that stuff. >> >> Ted Neward >> Java, .NET, XML Services >> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing >> http://www.tedneward.com >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM] >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:21 PM >>> To: Ted Neward >>> Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; build-dev at openjdk.java.net; >> Tim.Bell at Sun.COM >>> Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK >> source >>> drop >>> >>> Good question... I'll explore that possibility, warn that no plugs >> are >>> available but build as much as possible kind of thing, right? >>> >>> -kto >>> >>> Ted Neward wrote: >>>> No promises heard, no expectations understood. :-) >>>> >>>> I personally have a hard time following the argument that says that >>> "because >>>> we put them into our source repository, we're asserting some kind >> of >>> legal >>>> license ownership" or something, but hey, I'm not a lawyer, either. >>> :-/ >>>> Here's a Really Dumb Question(TM): Is it possible (and then, is it >>>> practical) to create a build that doesn't use any of the binary >> plugs >>> stuff? >>>> A stripped-down, JVM-and-core-classes-only kind of build that just >>> uses the >>>> core stuff that's out in the Sun-blessed open source domain? (I >>> haven't >>>> found that I cared about any of the binary plugs-related stuff yet, >>> so...) >>>> Ted Neward >>>> Java, .NET, XML Services >>>> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing >>>> http://www.tedneward.com >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:12 PM >>>>> To: Ted Neward >>>>> Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; build-dev at openjdk.java.net; >>> Tim.Bell at Sun.COM >>>>> Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK >>> source >>>>> drop >>>>> >>>>> I would love for these binary plugs to go away, and second best, >>> make >>>>> them trivially available, but we are in legal territory here. >>>>> I will bring up this issue and see if we can't do what you >> suggest, >>>>> but I am not a lawyer, no promises. >>>>> >>>>> They are a royal pain, no argument there. >>>>> >>>>> -kto >>>>> >>>>> Ted Neward wrote: >>>>>> If they're going to change with every build release, then it's >> even >>>>> MORE >>>>>> important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository. >>>>> Otherwise, >>>>>> the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository >>>>>> (rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out >>> the >>>>> window >>>>>> when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source >>> control >>>>> that >>>>>> states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in >>> the >>>>> source >>>>>> repository", can I? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ted Neward >>>>>> Java, .NET, XML Services >>>>>> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing >>>>>> http://www.tedneward.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at] >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM >>>>>>> To: Ted Neward >>>>>>> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net >>>>>>> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK >>>>> source >>>>>>> drop >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote: >>>>>>>> If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a >>> different >>>>>>>> repository? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial >>>>>>> equivalent) >>>>>>>> and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; >>> it's >>>>> a >>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>> more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs >>>>>>> (particularly >>>>>>>> since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as >>> the >>>>>>> source >>>>>>>> does), and only then do a build. >>>>>>> That's wrong. Every source build has it's matching binary plug. >>>>> See: >>>>>>> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - twisti >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>>>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release >> Date: >>>>>>> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: >>>>> 9/20/2007 >>>>>> 12:07 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: >>>>> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM >>>>> >>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: >>> 9/20/2007 >>>> 12:07 PM >>>> >>>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: >>> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM >>> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: >> 9/20/2007 >> 12:07 PM >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date: >> 9/21/2007 2:02 PM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007 > 5:00 PM > > From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Sun Sep 30 01:35:25 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:35:25 -0700 Subject: FW: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <05ce01c8026c$8392f930$8ab8eb90$@com> References: <05ce01c8026c$8392f930$8ab8eb90$@com> Message-ID: <46FEFD5D.1000802@sun.com> Never seen that before. We actually use ant 1.7, but I thought any 1.6 would have worked. I'm pretty sure Jonathan uses the ant in NetBeans, which is some kind of 1.6 version. -kto Ted Neward wrote: > When trying to build, I get an error in the langtools build, something about > "globmapper not supported as part of the copy task". I'm using Ant 1.6.2, > which passes make sanity. Is this a bug in the build.xml, or a bug in make > sanity (meaning I need a later version of Ant)? > > Ted Neward > Java, .NET, XML Services > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > http://www.tedneward.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: announce-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:announce- >> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM >> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:20 PM >> To: announce at openjdk.java.net >> Subject: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net website >> >> >> The OpenJDK source and Jtreg binary for the promoted JDK 7 build b21 is >> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under >> Source >> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 ) >> >> The OpenJDK sources are also available at the subversion repository >> http://openjdk.dev.java.net/source/browse/openjdk >> >> Summary of changes: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b21.html >> >> Thanks, >> -Xiomara >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.32/1033 - Release Date: >> 9/27/2007 11:06 AM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007 > 5:00 PM > > From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Sun Sep 30 01:37:40 2007 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:37:40 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <05d801c80277$75070fe0$5f152fa0$@com> References: <05ce01c8026c$8392f930$8ab8eb90$@com> <05d801c80277$75070fe0$5f152fa0$@com> Message-ID: <46FEFDE4.9070007@sun.com> I filed a bug on this. 6611337. I'll take care of it. -kto Ted Neward wrote: > Aha--got it. Ant 1.6.3 or higher is needed; globmapper wasn't added until > then. Make sanity needs to verify this, so it's a bug in the build script. I > don't have access at the moment to the bug system, so if somebody would be > kind enough to report it, should be a quick fix I would think.... > > Ted Neward > Java, .NET, XML Services > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > http://www.tedneward.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev- >> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Ted Neward >> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 12:44 AM >> To: build-dev at openjdk.java.net >> Subject: FW: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net >> website >> >> When trying to build, I get an error in the langtools build, something >> about >> "globmapper not supported as part of the copy task". I'm using Ant >> 1.6.2, >> which passes make sanity. Is this a bug in the build.xml, or a bug in >> make >> sanity (meaning I need a later version of Ant)? >> >> Ted Neward >> Java, .NET, XML Services >> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing >> http://www.tedneward.com >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: announce-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:announce- >>> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM >>> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:20 PM >>> To: announce at openjdk.java.net >>> Subject: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net website >>> >>> >>> The OpenJDK source and Jtreg binary for the promoted JDK 7 build b21 >> is >>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under >>> Source >>> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 >> ) >>> The OpenJDK sources are also available at the subversion repository >>> http://openjdk.dev.java.net/source/browse/openjdk >>> >>> Summary of changes: >>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b21.html >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Xiomara >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.32/1033 - Release Date: >>> 9/27/2007 11:06 AM >>> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: >> 9/27/2007 >> 5:00 PM >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: >> 9/27/2007 5:00 PM >> > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007 > 5:00 PM > > From ted at tedneward.com Sun Sep 30 02:27:14 2007 From: ted at tedneward.com (Ted Neward) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:27:14 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <46FEFDE4.9070007@sun.com> References: <05ce01c8026c$8392f930$8ab8eb90$@com> <05d801c80277$75070fe0$5f152fa0$@com> <46FEFDE4.9070007@sun.com> Message-ID: <078401c80309$6beb2260$43c16720$@com> Thanks.... Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM [mailto:Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM] > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:38 PM > To: Ted Neward > Cc: build-dev at openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net > website > > I filed a bug on this. 6611337. I'll take care of it. > > -kto > > Ted Neward wrote: > > Aha--got it. Ant 1.6.3 or higher is needed; globmapper wasn't added > until > > then. Make sanity needs to verify this, so it's a bug in the build > script. I > > don't have access at the moment to the bug system, so if somebody > would be > > kind enough to report it, should be a quick fix I would think.... > > > > Ted Neward > > Java, .NET, XML Services > > Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > > http://www.tedneward.com > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev- > >> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Ted Neward > >> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 12:44 AM > >> To: build-dev at openjdk.java.net > >> Subject: FW: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net > >> website > >> > >> When trying to build, I get an error in the langtools build, > something > >> about > >> "globmapper not supported as part of the copy task". I'm using Ant > >> 1.6.2, > >> which passes make sanity. Is this a bug in the build.xml, or a bug > in > >> make > >> sanity (meaning I need a later version of Ant)? > >> > >> Ted Neward > >> Java, .NET, XML Services > >> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing > >> http://www.tedneward.com > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: announce-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:announce- > >>> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM > >>> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:20 PM > >>> To: announce at openjdk.java.net > >>> Subject: JDK 7 build 21 is available at the openjdk.java.net > website > >>> > >>> > >>> The OpenJDK source and Jtreg binary for the promoted JDK 7 build > b21 > >> is > >>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under > >>> Source > >>> Code (direct link to bundles: > http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 > >> ) > >>> The OpenJDK sources are also available at the subversion repository > >>> http://openjdk.dev.java.net/source/browse/openjdk > >>> > >>> Summary of changes: > >>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b21.html > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> -Xiomara > >>> > >>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.32/1033 - Release Date: > >>> 9/27/2007 11:06 AM > >>> > >> No virus found in this outgoing message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: > >> 9/27/2007 > >> 5:00 PM > >> > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: > >> 9/27/2007 5:00 PM > >> > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: > 9/27/2007 > > 5:00 PM > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1037 - Release Date: > 9/29/2007 1:32 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1037 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 1:32 PM