Hi, Volker.
>> I've also filed build bug (8162687) referencing 8145919 and 8162686.
> I suppose you wanted to refer to "java.vm.specification.version" in
"8162687: ava.specification.version is always set to $MAJOR at build time"
because "java.vm.specification.version" is actually being set in th
Thanks, David!
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:22 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> +1 from me. Does the Verona JEP say anything about this? I certainly do not
> expect the specification version number of differ from the major release
> number.
>
> David
>
>
> On 26/07/2016 10:26 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>
>>
Hi Magnus,
thanks for the background information!
It's always the smallest issues which take the most time and the
longest discussions. I'm just happy that we have no line-endings in
the version string :)
Regards,
Volker
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie
wrote:
> Some backgr
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Iris Clark wrote:
> Hi, Volker.
>
> Thanks for your patience.
>
> I think that the solution that you've provided solves the immediate problem,
> the java.specification.version number is incorrectly set to be identical to
> java.version. The java.{vm.}?specificat
On 29/07/2016 11:54, Andrew Dinn wrote:
:
Well, that's very interesting but it wasn't this code that was missing,
rather a significant swathe of the core JDK runtime classes.
From what I can tell then src.zip, going back to JDK 1.1 at least,
didn't ever include all .java sources. Aside from a f
On 29/07/16 11:06, Alan Bateman wrote:
> I thought there was an FAQ on this but I can't find it. It comes up
> periodically but basically Oracle builds do have some code and modules
> that are not in OpenJDK, the deploy area (Java Web Start for example)
> mostly. Oracle builds have include the FX m
On 29/07/2016 10:43, Andrew Dinn wrote:
:
As Alan indicated, this is, of course, merely an artefact the EA Jigsaw
releases being Oracle builds. The build system can be configured to
include the missing sources in src.zip and seems to be so configured by
default. I cannot see Red Hat being happy
On 28/07/16 19:11, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 28/07/2016 19:04, Jason T. Greene wrote:
>> Wow! That's very unfortunate. If there's no way to correlate a source
>> snapshot to an OpenJDK binary; that's going to be a very strong
>> motivator for using a thirdparty build.
>>
> The `release` file in the
Hi Samuel, thank you for resending.
Oops, let me confirm one thing please.
You got this error on a repository hosted on kulla-dev, right?
If so, unfortunately it isn't under maintaining because it already merged
to jdk9-dev.
Please confirm that you still get this error on jdk9-dev and your patch
Error:
configure: Found potential Boot JDK using configure arguments
configure: Potential Boot JDK found at /opt/Java/jdk-9 is incorrect JDK
version (java version "9-ea"); ignoring
configure: (Your Boot JDK must be version 8 or 9)
configure: error: The path given by --with-boot-jdk does not contain
10 matches
Mail list logo
