The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the general recommendation for most
people should be to always use N-1. I think Stuart is just searching
for ways to make people aware that using N-1 is "the right thing to do".
-- Jon
On 06/17/2013 10:04 PM, David Holmes wrote:
I thought the only rule was "must be buildable by N-1", not that you
must not try to use N!
Can the problem preventing a build using JDK8 as the boot JDK not be
corrected? I'm assuming it is one of the more unusual parts of the
build where we mess with bootclasspath etc?
David
On 18/06/2013 10:21 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 6/17/13 4:02 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Rule #1 Nobody reads the README
Rule #2 When things go wrong, blame the README
I of course have no objection to the change, however, I'm not
convinced it will
help much the next time someone runs into this. :^(
Hi Kelly! You still read this stuff here? :-)
Yeah, I have no illusions that changing the README will prevent many, if
any, future occurrences of this problem. However, we had an internal
discussion on this incident where the N-1 rule was asserted. There was
no dispute about the rule, but I went off to find where it was
documented, and found only the fairly weak statement in the README. So,
at the very least, that ought to be fixed.
A stronger step would be to modify configure to check the version of the
boot JDK and to complain if it doesn't match N-1. Or perhaps even N-1
and update >= 7. What do you think? I was considering filing an RFE.
A restriction in configure would probably be more effective at
preventing these kinds of errors.
s'marks
