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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:12 PM > To: Ted Neward > Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM > >> To: Ted Neward > >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > >> 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
