I think one aspect of this discussion that is important and has been
overlooked is that there is no clear statement (specification?) anywhere
of the requirements for building OpenJDK. Since forever, the unwritten
rule has been N-1 [*] and that assumption has become pervasive. And, as
we have seen in this discussion, there are many consequences to changing
that assumption.
I think that the decision to change the policy about the boot JDK is too
important to hide in an edit in an Oracle-only build configuration file.
To be clear, I'm not advocating here for any specific value of N-1, N-2,
etc, I'm just saying the policy should be recorded in a more public
place than make/conf/jib-profiles.js, and should implicitly apply to all
folk wanting to build OpenJDK in the standard way, and not be just about
"building JDK 11 at Oracle".
-- Jon
[*] Actually, the rule has been N-1 or N, by virtue of the bootcycle
builds that used to be more common.
On 4/4/18 1:55 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Resending with corrected title.
On 2018-04-04 13:54, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Updating the bootjdk requirement for JDK 11 was controversial.
Instead I propose that for now, we just update the bootjdk used for
building JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10 and let compatibility with JDK 9
be a best effort from the parts of the community that wants to
support it.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8200083/webrev.02/
/Erik
On 2018-03-21 14:51, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Now that JDK 10 has been officially released we can update the boot
jdk requirement for JDK 11. Cross posting this to jdk-dev to raise
awareness of this rather disruptive change.
This patch changes the requirement on boot jdk version in configure
(and updates the configuration that controls what JDK to use as boot
in Oracle's internal build system).
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8200083/webrev.01/
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200083
/Erik
