On 24/02/2013 4:19 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com
<mailto:alan.bate...@oracle.com>> wrote:
On 23/02/2013 10:29, David Holmes wrote:
Just be aware there's a lot more involved in doing this than
just changing one a name in a makefile.
You beat to me too! Yes, there are likely a lot of scripts and paths
that assume the image name is j2sdk-image or j2re-image so renaming
will be a bit disruptive.
Sure, but you are *already* making a huge disruptive change to build
directory layout. People have to change their scripts from
linux-amd64/j2sdk-image
to
linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/j2sdk-image
Not quite. You can still have full control of the first directory
component [1] so for most builds there is no change there at all and no
disruption.
The additional images directory is also easily accommodated.
Scripts/processes that copy the images from path-A to path-B just need
to tweak path-A. But if you rename the actual j2sdk-image etc you have
to update everything that uses path-B.
Especially the repetition of "image" seems wrong in the new layout.
The new build tries to have a top-level directory for each major build
component. Hence images has its own directory.
David
-----
[1] Simplest way is:
> mkdir mydir
> cd mydir
> <path-to-configure>/configure
Why not
images/j2sdk-image
to
images/jdk
If you really want to keep "j2sdk-image", move it back into its parent
directory.
Also I think the initial goal of the new build system was to get it
to the point where it generated the "same bits" as the old build. I
assume this is why the new build went for the same directory names
as the old build (and probably because of scripts depending on the
name too).
Hopefully the new build system will lead to an increase, not decrease,
in overall sanity.
