----- Original Message ----- > > > On 2013-03-13 15:01, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Hello, > >> > >> I created a bug for you: > >> > >> 8009988: build-infra: Fix configure output for zip debuginfo check > >> > >> As David says, we haven't decided on 2.67, but I would guess that > >> a > >> majority of the commits have been with that version. This change > >> is a > >> first step towards enforcing a specific version and I'm ok with > >> that. > > Yes, I've been out of the loop a bit on this new build system. > > When I saw the huge diff my first attempt generated, I just assumed > > I should be using the same version that had been used previously. > > > >> The actual fix looks good to. You will still need a JDK reviewer > >> to > >> ok > >> it. Also, please notify me when you push this so that the closed > >> version > >> of the configure script may also be regenerated. > >> > > Ok, no problem. I await a review from someone like David or Kelly. > > > > Is there a preferred tree to push to? I spotted this when just > > trying > > to build so it's against jdk8 at the moment (which I obviously > > can't push > > to). Perhaps build? > > > Please use jdk8/build. > > /Erik > >> /Erik > >> > >> On 2013-03-13 13:18, Andrew Hughes wrote: > >>> I've finally found time to look at the new build system (well, > >>> there seems to no longer be any choice ;) > >>> and so thought I start out with a simple fix. > >>> > >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/build/zip_debug_info/webrev.01/ > >>> > >>> At the moment, if disable-zip-debug-info is not specified, the > >>> configure output is: > >>> > >>> checking if we should zip debug-info files... > >>> > >>> with no result as $enable_zip_debug_info is unset. > >>> > >>> This simple patch makes the option use the more standard > >>> AC_ARG_ENABLE form used elsewhere and will > >>> print the default ('yes') when the option is unspecified: > >>> > >>> checking if we should zip debug-info files... yes > >>> > >>> What actually took longer than the fix was updating the generated > >>> files. We seem to have already settled > >>> on autoconf 2.67 for generating the configure script, so my > >>> initial > >>> attempt threw up a huge number of changes > >>> as the system install is 2.69. I was able to get it down to > >>> something closer to what is expected by installing > >>> a local copy of 2.67 but it's still not perfect. I don't know > >>> why. > >>> I've never been a fan of including generated > >>> files for this reason. > >>> > >>> So this script also updates autogen.sh to see if there is an > >>> autoconf-2.67 available and use that in preference > >>> to autoconf if it is. I also added a little debug output so we > >>> can > >>> see which autoconf is being used in autogen.sh. > >>> > >>> If this is ok, can you please allocate it a bug ID and let me > >>> know > >>> which tree to commit it to. > >>> > >>> Thanks, >
Any progress on this? Still needs a reviewer. -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
