> Frankly, it seems a little silly to me to expect that anyone would > even be capable of maintaining 32/universal OpenJDK builds for OS X > unless you make the first step of making it *possible* to build > 32/universal OpenJDK for OS X. Making them buildable seems like a > first step, eh? > >
+1 > * Is there community interest in having 32/universal build support in > OpenJDK on OS X? I think the answer is obviously yes. > * Has anyone stepped up to provide patches to make 32/universal builds > possible on OS X? The answer is also yes. > > Henri has done a fantastic job by making it possible to use Java 7 on the Mac, way before we could get any "official" pre-release of any sort. > * Does OpenJDK work in 32-bit or universal modes on OS X? "Works" is > hard to answer definitively, without running the TCK, but *none* of > Henri's builds (which you praised openly at FOSDEM, Dalibor) have run > TCK either, right? So it "works" as well as any build of OpenJDK that > hasn't run TCK, which is very likely *all* community builds in the > wild. > > Yes, I think most of us do not care about the build passing the TCK or not. We use such builds for development, hence "fresh" is better than "blessed". > openjdk-osx-build is a valuable resource for any of us working on OS > X, and it would be a terrible shame to lose it. > > Unfortunately it seems like it has already been lost... Cheers
