Erik,
It sounds like you may describing something different to that which Jiri
is asking for.
You are describing "bundles of the images, including docs". The docs
image contains the output from many separate runs of javadoc, and it
sounds like you are considering a make target to generate a single
.tar.gz file containing all that javadoc output.
But if I understand Jiri's request correctly, he is asking for each
individual collection of output from javadoc to be zipped. In other
words, we would end up with a dozen or so .zip files from all the
various runs of javadoc in the build.
-- Jon
On 02/25/2016 06:50 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Jiri,
Adding a build target for creating bundles of all our images,
including docs, is currently on my todo here:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136777
I believe our intention there is use tar.gz bundles for the most part.
I would assume your usecase would require zip? This is certainly
something to take into consideration if that's the case.
/Erik
On 2016-02-25 03:24, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Hello!
Firs, sorry for spamming three lists but imho it is really touching
all of them - it will be change in makefile, and it is new feature
for old docs....
Currently, when you run make all, javadoc is generated as directory.
I do not wont to touch this. However, I would like to add target,
which will pack generated javadoc... Lets say correctly to zip archive.
Having javadoc as directory have its advantages, but having javadoc
as archive have another set of advantages. (eg main user of javadoc
are IDEs. and all IDEs I know support archived javadocs. All library
javadocs distributed over web are distributed as zips, and they are
not expected to be unpacked. Many tools crate archved javadocs by
default and so on...)
I'm packaging openjdk for fedora, and next to
java-1.X.0-openjdk-javadoc, and I wonted to provide
java-1.X.0-openjdk-javadoc-zip so users have an choice to select
zipped/unzipped javadoc depending on theirs usage. You may argue that
size do not meter, but having four (6,7,8,9) jdks on machine, and so
having 4 javadocs - it metres if it is 4x250mb or 4x50mb.
Also, when I was preparing this simple patch to my packages, I
realised - am I compressing all? Am I compressing it correctly and in
best way? Is delivering of *JDK's* javadoc as archive even safe?
So I would say that having this supported in upstream is much better
then just pack zip it in distribution packages.
What do you think?
If you are interested, I will elaborate patch for jdk9 with wish for
jdk8. Change should be simple, and the benefits worthy.
Thanx!
J.
