----- Original Message ----- > On 2014-02-20 23:40, Omair Majid wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The following is a preliminary webrev that allows OpenJDK to build and > > run against a system-installed copy of lcms2 rather than the copy > > bundled with OpenJDK: > > > > root: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~omajid/webrevs/system-lcms/00/ > > jdk: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~omajid/webrevs/system-lcms/00-jdk/ > > > > The goal is to add a new option `--with-lcms=` with possible values > > `bundled` or `system`. Using `--with-lcms=system` builds using the > > system-installed copy of lcms2 while `--with-lcms=bundled` builds with > > the bundled copy of lcms2 in OpenJDK. > > > > This patch is quite a bit more invasive than the libpng one [1]. There > > are a few issues that came up: > > > > 1. The sources for the bundled library are contained next to > > OpenJDK-specific sources. This is not true for the bundled copies of > > zlib, libpng and giflib. On the other hand, the jpeg code in OpenJDK > > also mixes OpenJDK-specific code with bundled libjpeg code. To make it > > easier to see (and compile) only non-lcms2 code, I moved the > > lcms2-specific code into a separate directory. There are no code changes > > there. > The only OpenJDK-specific file here is LCMS.c, right?
Yes. At least, it was true in 7: http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea7-forest/jdk/file/tip/make/sun/cmm/lcms/FILES_c_unix.gmk I don't know why we didn't move it to a sub-directory then, like we did with JPEG. I suspect simply because LCMS was done first. > > > I made changes which made sense to me, but I am not sure how this fits > > in with existing conventions. Perhaps people here have suggestions on > > how to make this less invasive and still achieve the goal while keep > > things separate and distinct? > > I think it makes sense in separating our own code and an imported library. So do I. It makes deleting the bundled copy more maintainable. > I think the "j2" convention is reasonable. This is where we disagree. I may have agreed if this was new, but we've been using libjavalcms.so for the lifetime of 7 and I see no reason to change this. Also, "j2" seems pretty meaningless. > I think the --with-lcms option is reasonable. In keeping with convention, yes. I'd still like to change these to --enable in the long run. > > So, the parts seems to work out fine. Still there's something bothering > me with this fix, that I can't really put my finger on. Let's hear what > the 2D people are saying. If they don't object, I won't object. > This is pretty much the same as we've been carrying since 2011, but modified for the new build, so I don't see any reason for objection. > But I like the way you're working on cleaning up our relationship to our > bundled libraries! It's necessary for us and we've had this work since 2007. Of course, this new build system broke most of it and meant it had to be rewritten :( > > /Magnus > -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
