Re: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes

On 4/25/2011 4:49 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: On Apr 25, 2011, at 3:46 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: It would be a good idea to get this done as one of the first things, that way, it makes it easier to attract new forks. Right now, the barrier to help is quite high. Attract new forks? What does that m

Re: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes

On Apr 25, 2011, at 3:46 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: > I'd also like to add that an additional goal could be: > > * full documentation of the design (as well as the process) of the build I'd agree to a guidelines and strategy document, that could benefit us in the long run. Not convinced a huge am

Re: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes

On Apr 24, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> >> FYI... >> >> I sent this, but I'm not seeing any record it was received... :^( >> >> -kto > I don't see it in the archives either. > > Anyway it is great to hear that the build will be getting attention, it's > long

Re: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes

On Apr 24, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Lussier, Denis wrote: > My two cents are: > > I think this is great. To say the least, it has historically been > challenging and/or non-standard to build OpenJDK (most especially on > Windoze). Keep in mind, that our goals did not include meeting anyone's standar

Re: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes

I looked at it, and I'm not convinced it provides a great deal of benefits over GNU make 3.81. It seems to be missing anything with regards to dealing with building a jdk image (where there are 2 JDKs involved or a langtools javac building situation). The JNI support seemed limited. And I saw not

Re: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes

Il giorno lun, 25/04/2011 alle 13.07 -0700, Erik Trimble ha scritto: > Cmake sounds very promising. > > I would certainly think it merits a discussion of usefulness. > > The major barrier I'd say is that it would require us to do a forklift > replacement of the existing gmake Makefile build syste

Re: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes

Cmake sounds very promising. I would certainly think it merits a discussion of usefulness. The major barrier I'd say is that it would require us to do a forklift replacement of the existing gmake Makefile build system. That is, it is unlikely that an incremental replacement of the gmake system co

Re: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes

Hi, Did you consider using a tool like cmake to manage the build? Cheers On 25 avr. 2011, at 12:46, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 4/24/2011 10:12 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> >> >> FYI... >> >> I sent this, but I'm not seeing any record it was received... :^( >> >> -kto >> >> >> Begin forwarded

Re: Review request (XS): 7037081 "Remove com.sun.tracing from NON_CORE_PKGS"

Looks ok to me. -kto On Apr 25, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Mandy Chung wrote: > Jon, Kelly, > > Can you review the fix for 7037081: Remove com.sun.tracing from NON_CORE_PKGS > > This fix removes the generation of javadoc for this package and adds > com.sun.tracing to the javac's legacy.properties tha

Review request (XS): 7037081 "Remove com.sun.tracing from NON_CORE_PKGS"

Jon, Kelly, Can you review the fix for 7037081: Remove com.sun.tracing from NON_CORE_PKGS This fix removes the generation of javadoc for this package and adds com.sun.tracing to the javac's legacy.properties that javac will issue warnings of any use. Webrev at: http://cr.openjdk.java.n

Re: Fwd: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes

On 4/24/2011 10:12 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: FYI... I sent this, but I'm not seeing any record it was received... :^( -kto Begin forwarded message: *From: *Kelly O'Hair > *Date: *April 22, 2011 16:49:29 PM PDT *To: *annou...@openjdk.java.net