Hi Volker,
I agree completely. As I wrote in my reply to David - fixes in this area
are very much welcome. Adding additional and/or alternative instructions
and tips to the BUILD-README file is also a fix, btw.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 05/23/13 18:00, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Anthony,
I think what David is really objecting here is that the current build
requirements for building OpenJDK 8 on Windows as described in the
official build documentation can not be easily fulfilled by anybody
outside Oracle (because of age-old dependencies which simply aren't
publicly available anymore and which can not be easily provided by the
OpenJDK project itself because of licensing issues - e.g. "DirectX 9.0
SDK Update Summer 2004", Cygwin 1.7.16, etc...).
Of course it is possible to finally build with almost any combination of
tools and libraries given that you invest enough time and resources and
of course after you succeed in doing so you got wiser a little bit. But
that's not the point! Ideally, everybody should be able to get the
required build dependencies as easy as the JDK sources and after
installing them as described in the build documentation he should be
able to build. That's currently not the case - at least not on Windows!
The problem is that Oracle nails down the build requirements years
before a Java version is released and these requirements are carved into
stone in the official build documentation. That's perfectly fine for a
commercially released product which has to run on a variety of different
platforms and which has to be supported for a long period of time - but
not for an OpenSource project!
I've been criticized for my suggestion to put (at least a part of) the
build documentation into a Wiki in order to get a chance to update it
more dynamically. From a software engineering standpoint that criticism
was perfectly valid. From a pragmatic point of view perhaps not. Anyway
- if we want to keep the build instructions in the repository in a
central document (which is good!), than this document should really
reflect the current situation and not the the instructions how Oracle
once decided to build its derived, commercial product. I understand that
Oracle may not want to be responsible to provide such a kind of document
and that's perfectly fine. After all this is an open source project so
the community may have to be involved here - we just have to make this
fact clear to anybody.
Currently, unfortunately, all these notable Windows build adventures
more than often lead to a dead-end (just browse the mailing lists!) or
at best in a blog entry which describes a special, working setup (been
there several time myself:)
Nevertheless David, you have my full moral support!
Regards,
Volker
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Anthony Petrov
<anthony.pet...@oracle.com <mailto:anthony.pet...@oracle.com>> wrote:
David,
I pretty much understand the problem you're trying to solve. I
recall myself in 2006-2007 when I was eagerly wanting to build
(then) JDK 6 with VS2005 while we officially used VS2003. It was
fun. :) Later on we ended up switching to VS2010 for JDK7, however
some results of my work still were useful and relevant, and they
made their way to the JDK repo (some make files changes,
command-line options for the compiler, minor code changes, etc.)
So if you come up with some useful fixes for our new build system
and/or sources to provide better support for newer
compilers/libraries - it's great!
FWIW, I did build JDK8 with VS2012 back in Oct/Nov last year. I've
run a few GUI demo apps (SwingSet2 and friends) and they all worked
just fine. Only some make files needed some minor updates in order
to learn to use the new compilers. Overall, switching from VS2010 to
VS2012 shouldn't be hard.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 05/23/13 16:47, David Chase wrote:
I think you need to understand the problem I'm after --
currently, our public instructions for third-party OpenJDK (8)
builds don't work.
They don't build at all, so porting is completely out of the
question. I'm trying to come up with instructions that will at
least build something that will run on the machine where it is
built.
Regarding the DirectX compatibility, that sounds like something
we should be repairing in the builds, so that we can cut our
dependence on a 9-year-old release of the DirectX SDK.
Note also that some of these newer DirectX SDKs (certainly April
2006) will mess up your %PATH% by inserting elements on it that
include quoted strings, and those you will need to remove
manually. I will do the experiment to see if the 2010 release
does not do this, since "repair your path after installing
required software" is a good step not to have in any build process.
On 2013-05-23, at 8:08 AM, Anthony
Petrov<anthony.petrov@oracle.__com
<mailto:anthony.pet...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Binaries built with VS2012 won't run on WinXP. You need
VS2012sp1 to make them compatible with XP.
Yes, we don't officially support JDK8 on Windows XP.
However, there's a difference between _not supported_ and
_just won't run_.
Hence, if we ever decide to switch to VS2012, we'll most
likely want to use VS2012sp1+.
