Hi, Did you consider using a tool like cmake to manage the build?
Cheers On 25 avr. 2011, at 12:46, Erik Trimble <erik.trim...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 4/24/2011 10:12 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> >> >> FYI... >> >> I sent this, but I'm not seeing any record it was received... :^( >> >> -kto >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Kelly O'Hair <kelly.oh...@oracle.com> >>> Date: April 22, 2011 16:49:29 PM PDT >>> To: annou...@openjdk.java.net >>> Subject: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes >>> Reply-To: disc...@openjdk.java.net >>> >>> Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes >>> In accordance with the OpenJDK guidelines for projects [1], I hereby >>> propose the OpenJDK Project "Build Infrastructure Changes". >>> This Project will be used for developing major changes to the JDK build >>> process. >>> A list of some of the goals include: >>> * Drastically improving the turnaround on full builds >>> * Provide a reliable way for incremental builds to work >>> * Simplify the makefiles drastically avoiding unnecessary nested makes >>> * Allow for parallel building with make -j >>> * Allow for 32bit builds to happen on 64bit systems >>> * Allow for use of more portable build tools (compilers etc.) where >>> possible >>> This work will be done in a separate set of repositories. >>> I propose this project be sponsored by the Build Group [2] and that I >>> be the initial moderator of the project. >>> >>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/ >>> [2] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/build/ >>> >>> >> > > As one of the major people impacted by this, I give it a very big +1. > > YES. > > > I'd also like to add that an additional goal could be: > > * full documentation of the design (as well as the process) of the build > > > It would be a good idea to get this done as one of the first things, that > way, it makes it easier to attract new forks. Right now, the barrier to help > is quite high. > > > -- > Erik Trimble > Java System Support > Mailstop: usca22-123 > Phone: x17195 > Santa Clara, CA
