On Jun 17, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi Kelly! You still read this stuff here? :-)
I read anything that looks entertaining from entertaining people. ;^)
-kto
On 6/19/13 1:01 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Currently, configure checks that the found boot jdk is 7 or 8. Do we really
want to actively prevent using 8 all together? I could agree to printing a big
warning in the summary at the end of configure to discourage it, but I do
believe it necessary to hav
On 6/19/2013 4:01 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Now ... circular dependencies ... urk ... I *knew* there was something
that would make this complicated. Well, maybe these will need to be
refactored away somehow. Or maybe some kind of GenStubs technique can
be used to deal with the circularity.
We
I'm not sure how big a warning needs to be to make people aware of it.
Is it possible to create another configure option like
--yes-i-do-want-to-use-n that you must add to set boot jdk to 8?
--Max
On 6/19/2013 5:23 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 19/06/2013 09:01, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2013-
On 19/06/2013 09:01, Erik Joelsson wrote:
:
My preferred solution would be to fold in the repos that aren't
upstream projects into jdk and just have them compile with the rest
there. I much like the idea of reducing the number of repos. If that
isn't possible, we can just add those source dir
On 19/06/2013 09:01, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2013-06-19 03:10, Stuart Marks wrote:
--
I have half a mind to look at the Configure changes myself in my spare
time (ha!), but I have no spare time, and I don't have the expertise
in this area anyway. So anyone is welcome to pick this up. In
princ
On 2013-06-19 03:10, Stuart Marks wrote:
--
I have half a mind to look at the Configure changes myself in my spare
time (ha!), but I have no spare time, and I don't have the expertise
in this area anyway. So anyone is welcome to pick this up. In
principle it should be fairly simple, and I t
On 6/18/13 2:25 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 18/06/2013 08:42, Stuart Marks wrote:
4) Could jaxp, jaxws, and corba be built with the current JDK, not the boot
JDK? Sure, probably.[...]
My understanding is that the new build is just following the old build[...]
As least for the jaxws repositor
On 6/18/13 2:16 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 06/18/2013 10:02 AM, David Holmes wrote:
I don't think we should simply say
"Do not use a build of JDK 8 as the boot JDK for building JDK 8."
as that doesn't explain what the issue is. If I'm building the JDK for
my own use I can use JDK8. So how abo
On 18/06/2013 08:42, Stuart Marks wrote:
:
4) Could jaxp, jaxws, and corba be built with the current JDK, not the
boot JDK? Sure, probably. I spoke with Jon G on this topic the other
day and we didn't come up with any really good reasons why they need
to be built with the boot JDK. Historical
On 06/18/2013 10:02 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Stuart,
> I would like people to review the README change as well. Thanks.
I don't think we should simply say
"Do not use a build of JDK 8 as the boot JDK for building JDK 8."
as that doesn't explain what the issue is. If I'm building the JDK fo
Hi Erik,
On 18/06/2013 6:06 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2013-06-18 08:57, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 6/18/13 8:28 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 18/06/2013 4:02 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the ge
Hi Stuart,
> I would like people to review the README change as well. Thanks.
I don't think we should simply say
"Do not use a build of JDK 8 as the boot JDK for building JDK 8."
as that doesn't explain what the issue is. If I'm building the JDK for
my own use I can use JDK8. So how about:
On 2013-06-18 08:57, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 6/18/13 8:28 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 18/06/2013 4:02 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the general recommendation for most
people should be to alw
Hi folks,
Looks like I generated a bit of discussion here. Let's try to tease apart some
of the issues.
1) I think we need a better articulation of the rule about the boot JDK being
N-1, thus my proposed change to the README. I don't mean to ever prohibit
anybody from ever trying to build JD
On 6/18/13 8:28 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 18/06/2013 4:02 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the general recommendation for most
people should be to always use N-1. I think Stuart is just searchi
On 18/06/2013 4:02 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the general recommendation for most
people should be to always use N-1. I think Stuart is just searching
for ways to make people aware that usi
On 6/17/2013 6:22 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 06/17/2013 05:21 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 6/17/13 4:02 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Rule #1 Nobody reads the README
Rule #2 When things go wrong, blame the README
I of course have no objection to the change, however, I'm not
convinced it will
he
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the general recommendation for most
people should be to always use N-1. I think Stuart is just searching
for ways to make people aware that using N-1 is "the right thing to do".
-- Jon
I thought the only rule was "must be buildable by N-1", not that you
must not try to use N!
Can the problem preventing a build using JDK8 as the boot JDK not be
corrected? I'm assuming it is one of the more unusual parts of the build
where we mess with bootclasspath etc?
David
On 18/06/2013
On 06/17/2013 05:21 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 6/17/13 4:02 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Rule #1 Nobody reads the README
Rule #2 When things go wrong, blame the README
I of course have no objection to the change, however, I'm not
convinced it will
help much the next time someone runs into this. :^
On 6/17/13 4:02 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Rule #1 Nobody reads the README
Rule #2 When things go wrong, blame the README
I of course have no objection to the change, however, I'm not convinced it will
help much the next time someone runs into this. :^(
Hi Kelly! You still read this stuff here? :
I couldn't find a good way to show me rolling my eyes, but I found this:
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/rolling%20eyes%20gif
Rule #1 Nobody reads the README
Rule #2 When things go wrong, blame the README
I of course have no objection to the change, however, I'm not convinced it will
help much th
Hi all,
We had a problem in TL the other day [1] [2] that wasn't caught because a
developer was using a JDK 8 build as his boot JDK. Turns out the rule to use
JDK N-1 as the boot JDK for JDK N isn't specified clearly in
README-builds.html. Here's a diff to strengthen the wording in that file.
24 matches
Mail list logo
