Hi Erik, Jiri,
We filed a bug report for this and I pushed the changes:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8154313
Cheers,
Mario
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>>
>
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-04-07 14:48, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new bundle
targets for all kinds of
bundles. I'm hopi
On 04/07/2016 03:01 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2016-04-07 14:48, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new bundle targets
for all kinds of
bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It might mean a reimplementation
of this patch, not
sure ye
On 2016-04-07 14:48, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new
bundle targets for all kinds of
bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It might mean a
reimplementation of this patch, not
sure yet. Your docs bundle is quite different from th
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new bundle targets
for all kinds of
bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It might mean a reimplementation
of this patch, not
sure yet. Your docs bundle is quite different from the bundle we need so we
likely need to pro
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new bundle targets
for all kinds of
bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It might mean a reimplementation
of this patch, not
sure yet. Your docs bundle is quite different from the bundle we need so we
likely need to pro
Hello,
For the JDK 9 change, beware that we are going to be making new bundle
targets for all kinds of bundles. I'm hoping to start that work soon. It
might mean a reimplementation of this patch, not sure yet. Your docs
bundle is quite different from the bundle we need so we likely need to
pr
Hello!
As I sad I did:
I used your patch (also with remarks and suggestions from the last email)
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/jdk8-archivedJavadoc.patch
created subpackage
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/commit/?id=db2f51d
Hello,
There is still an mkdir instead of $(MKDIR).
The comments don't read very well, here is a suggestion.
"Optional target which bundles all generated javadocs into a zip
archive. The dependency on docs is handled in Main.gmk. Incremental
building of docs is currently broken so if you invo
On 03/31/2016 04:18 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v3/
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v3/webrev.zip
All should be fixed.
*however* I did not tested it. I was working on another machine, and p
Right, what I meant was $(RM) -r.
/Erik
On 2016-04-01 05:05, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Actually, RM is "rm -f" so $(RM) -f is redundant.
/Magnus
31 mars 2016 kl. 07:18 skrev Erik Joelsson :
Hello,
The comment has not been updated after the dependencies changed.
Please use $(MKDIR), $(RM)
Actually, RM is "rm -f" so $(RM) -f is redundant.
/Magnus
> 31 mars 2016 kl. 07:18 skrev Erik Joelsson :
>
> Hello,
>
> The comment has not been updated after the dependencies changed.
>
> Please use $(MKDIR), $(RM) -f and $(LN).
>
> There is no need for the dash before rm since rm -f won't
Hello,
The comment has not been updated after the dependencies changed.
Please use $(MKDIR), $(RM) -f and $(LN).
There is no need for the dash before rm since rm -f won't fail and we
haven't used it like that before in these makefiles.
Please don't remove the assembly dir after zipping. In g
Here we go!
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v2/
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v2/webrev.zip
I can't seem to find your name on the OCA list [1], have you signed it?
Otherwise we cannot accept
patches from you.
As Andrew wro
On 03/30/2016 09:39 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> I can't seem to find your name on the OCA list [1], have you signed it?
> Otherwise we cannot accept patches from you.
He is @redhat.com. We have a blanket OCA assignment for all
employees. That is all that matters.
Andrew.
Hello Jiri,
I can't seem to find your name on the OCA list [1], have you signed it?
Otherwise we cannot accept patches from you.
I can comment and review the patch from a build point of view. There is
a separate processes for approving it for inclusion in an older release,
like JDK 8.
That
Hello Again!
Sorry for delay in reply.
There is webrev
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v1/
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v1/webrev.zip
with patch as was (moreover) agreed in this thread for *jdk8*
As I was studying the makefi
I wouldn't go that far, but I won't have time to look into it for a
while yet at least.
/Erik
On 2016-03-08 15:34, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Ping?
Or is this going to be considered closed-wont "fix"?
Thanx!
J.
On 02/29/2016 04:24 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/26/2016 08:05 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrot
Ping?
Or is this going to be considered closed-wont "fix"?
Thanx!
J.
On 02/29/2016 04:24 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/26/2016 08:05 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 02/26/2016 03:49 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/25/2016 06:34 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 02/25/2016 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/26/2016 08:05 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 02/26/2016 03:49 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/25/2016 06:34 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 02/25/2016 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
I must be missing something. Dozens? Of varius runs of javadoc?
I thought that javadoc ending at the end in sing
On 02/26/2016 03:49 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/25/2016 06:34 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 02/25/2016 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
I must be missing something. Dozens? Of varius runs of javadoc?
I thought that javadoc ending at the end in single drectory is one
single javadoc for java. If
y
On 02/25/2016 06:34 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 02/25/2016 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
I must be missing something. Dozens? Of varius runs of javadoc?
I thought that javadoc ending at the end in single drectory is one single
javadoc for java. If
you are referring to javadoc generated by "p
On 02/25/2016 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
I must be missing something. Dozens? Of varius runs of javadoc?
I thought that javadoc ending at the end in single drectory is one
single javadoc for java. If you are referring to javadoc generated by
"per module" then one jjoined zip is enough for m
On 02/25/2016 04:31 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Erik,
It sounds like you may describing something different to that which Jiri is
asking for.
Well right. Sorry. I read the bug to rashly.
You are describing "bundles of the images, including docs". The docs image
contains the output from m
Erik,
It sounds like you may describing something different to that which Jiri
is asking for.
You are describing "bundles of the images, including docs". The docs
image contains the output from many separate runs of javadoc, and it
sounds like you are considering a make target to generate
On 02/25/2016 03:50 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Jiri,
Adding a build target for creating bundles of all our images, including docs,
is currently on my
todo here:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136777
I believe our intention there is use tar.gz bundles for the most part. I would
Hello Jiri,
Adding a build target for creating bundles of all our images, including
docs, is currently on my todo here:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136777
I believe our intention there is use tar.gz bundles for the most part. I
would assume your usecase would require zip? This
Hello!
Firs, sorry for spamming three lists but imho it is really touching all of them - it will be change
in makefile, and it is new feature for old docs
Currently, when you run make all, javadoc is generated as directory. I do not wont to touch this.
However, I would like to add target
28 matches
Mail list logo
