gnus Ihse Bursie
URL:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/6de90ad9800b83c4a5f364c3645603fcb6828d6c
Stats: 6 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 6 mod
8280863: Update build README to reflect that MSYS2 is supported
Reviewed-by: ihse
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7242
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:12:06 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> TheShermanTanker has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains two additional
>
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:28:44 GMT, TheShermanTanker
wrote:
>> Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679)
>> was merged in 16, MSYS2 became capable of building a functional JDK on
>> Windows. This PR updates some outdated documentation in building.html and
>> bui
> Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679)
> was merged in 16, MSYS2 became capable of building a functional JDK on
> Windows. This PR updates some outdated documentation in building.html and
> building.md to reflect that change.
>
> I appreciate any reviews, a
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 08:49:56 GMT, TheShermanTanker
wrote:
>> Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679)
>> was merged in 16, MSYS2 became capable of building a functional JDK on
>> Windows. This PR updates some outdated documentation in building.html and
>> bui
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 08:49:56 GMT, TheShermanTanker
wrote:
>> Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679)
>> was merged in 16, MSys 2 became capable of building a functional JDK on
>> Windows. This PR updates some outdated documentation in building.html and
>> bu
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:49:08 GMT, TheShermanTanker
wrote:
> Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679)
> was merged in 16, MSys 2 became capable of building a functional JDK on
> Windows. This PR updates some outdated documentation in building.html and
> buildi
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:49:08 GMT, TheShermanTanker
wrote:
> Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679)
> was merged in 16, MSys 2 became capable of building a functional JDK on
> Windows. This PR updates some outdated documentation in building.html and
> buildi
> Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679)
> was merged in 16, MSys 2 became capable of building a functional JDK on
> Windows. This PR updates some outdated documentation in building.html and
> building.md to reflect that change.
>
> I appreciate any reviews,
>> issue. You'll need a new bug entry for the problem you are trying to solve
>> here. If you do not have access to the bug system, let me know and I can
>> help you.
>> * I have actually a similar fix on a personal branch, where I'm updating
>> several
Hi, Mark.
>> I think it would be nice if you could reference the JDK Project page
>> (ojn/projects/jdk), not just ojn.
>
> Good idea ... but I just pushed the changeset. I’ll fix that later.
Sorry for the late review. You change wasn't there when I visited the READM
2020/7/23 10:33:34 -0700, [email protected]:
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250216
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Patch below.
>
> Looks good.
>
> I think it would be nice if you could reference the JDK Project page
> (ojn/projects/jdk), not just ojn.
Good idea ... but I just pushe
Hi, Mark.
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250216
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Patch below.
Looks good.
I think it would be nice if you could reference the JDK Project page
(ojn/projects/jdk), not just ojn.
Thanks,
Iris
Looks good.
/Erik
On 2020-07-23 10:11, [email protected] wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250216
The README at the root of the source tree says, “For information about
building the JDK, including how to retrieve all of the source code,
please see ...” yet we
Looks fine.
-Joe
On 7/23/2020 10:11 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250216
The README at the root of the source tree says, “For information about
building the JDK, including how to retrieve all of the source code,
please see ...” yet we
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250216
The README at the root of the source tree says, “For information about
building the JDK, including how to retrieve all of the source code,
please see ...” yet we haven’t needed instructions on how to retrieve
the rest of the source code since
ementation.
Yeah... It used to be a separate function but then I inlined it.
Removed the call now.
Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8176509-use-pandoc-for-build-readme/webrev.04
/Magnus
/Erik
On 2017-03-10 15:50, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Since JDK-8139668, the build R
inlined it. Removed
the call now.
Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8176509-use-pandoc-for-build-readme/webrev.04
/Magnus
/Erik
On 2017-03-10 15:50, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Since JDK-8139668, the build README html file has been generated from
a markdown source.
Unfortuna
e the implementation.
/Erik
On 2017-03-10 15:50, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Since JDK-8139668, the build README html file has been generated from
a markdown source.
Unfortunately, this implementation used the original markdown (from
https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/), which was
Since JDK-8139668, the build README html file has been generated from a
markdown source.
Unfortunately, this implementation used the original markdown (from
https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/), which was quite limited,
and did not for instance allow for tables.
Now that JEP 299
was changed in build 96. The jprt
configuration, jib, devtools and readme needs to be updated to
reflect this. In the readme, there are some other left overs from
other compiler changes that also need to be tweaked.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145391
Webrev: http
and readme needs to be updated to
reflect this. In the readme, there are some other left overs from
other compiler changes that also need to be tweaked.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145391
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8145391/webrev.01/
/Erik
Looks good to me
readme needs to be updated to
reflect this. In the readme, there are some other left overs from
other compiler changes that also need to be tweaked.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145391
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8145391/webrev.01/
/Erik
Looks good to me.
/Magnus
On 2015-12-15 11:37, Erik Joelsson wrote:
The default compiler for Solaris was changed in build 96. The jprt
configuration, jib, devtools and readme needs to be updated to reflect
this. In the readme, there are some other left overs from other
compiler changes that also need to be tweaked
The default compiler for Solaris was changed in build 96. The jprt
configuration, jib, devtools and readme needs to be updated to reflect
this. In the readme, there are some other left overs from other compiler
changes that also need to be tweaked.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse
On 2015-08-11 20:31, Anthony Vanelverdinghe wrote:
Hi
While looking for README-builds.html, I came across the following
outdated README: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/tip/README
An equally outdated file is in the langtools repository:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9
Looks good to me.
/Erik
On 2015-10-15 16:38, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Finished.
The build documentation is currently available in README-build.html.
The problem with having the build instructions in html format is
two-fold:
1) It is hard to read from a terminal
2) It is unnecessary
Finished.
The build documentation is currently available in README-build.html. The
problem with having the build instructions in html format is two-fold:
1) It is hard to read from a terminal
2) It is unnecessary difficult to modify
At least 2) means that it is an extra threshold to get over
Hi
While looking for README-builds.html, I came across the following
outdated README: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/tip/README
An equally outdated file is in the langtools repository:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/langtools/file/tip/README
In my opinion, these should be
e that a go later
>> (HTML to Markdown converter to start with anyone? ;-)), but I suspect
>> Markdown readers aren't as ubiquitous as HTML readers and we'd have also
>> have to include an "export to output type X" step/tool, not sure how much
>> work
suspect Markdown readers aren't as ubiquitous as HTML readers and we'd
have also have to include an "export to output type X" step/tool, not
sure how much work that is, where it would get done etc.
Sound reasonable?
If you're prepared to spend the time converting the
gt; In a somewhat related area: I've been toying with the idea of rewriting
> the
> > build-readme in markdown instead, and just generate the html file.
> Updating
> > proper, consistent html formatting for a document like this is quite
> > painful, and we never seem to
* Magnus Ihse Bursie [2015-02-03 08:48]:
> In a somewhat related area: I've been toying with the idea of rewriting the
> build-readme in markdown instead, and just generate the html file. Updating
> proper, consistent html formatting for a document like this is quite
> painful,
nge, it might make sense to separate those. But just a few formatting
> changes among real content change is no problem.
>
> In a somewhat related area: I've been toying with the idea of rewriting
> the build-readme in markdown instead, and just generate the html file.
> Updating proper, consistent html formatting for a document like this is
> quite painful, and we never seem to get it right. Does it sound like a good
> idea?
>
> /Magnus
>
in number than actual content
change, it might make sense to separate those. But just a few formatting
changes among real content change is no problem.
In a somewhat related area: I've been toying with the idea of rewriting
the build-readme in markdown instead, and just generate the html file
Hi all,
I'm sitting at FOSDEM and was reminded that we hadn't yet made the effort
to integrate the "How to build OpenJDK" material we've built up over on
adoptopendk.java.net (the incubator site for Adoption Group activities) as
well as tidying up some typos and HTML compatibility warnings in the
Hi, Erik.
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8041593
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8041593/webrev.root.01/
Great!
Thanks,
iris
Hi Erik:
Here is a minor patch to README-builds.html to update references to
jdk8 to jdk9 and fix the part about boot jdk since we now require jdk8.
I realize there is probably a lot more that needs to be fixed in this
file, but would like to leave that for another time.
Bug: https
Here is a minor patch to README-builds.html to update references to jdk8
to jdk9 and fix the part about boot jdk since we now require jdk8.
I realize there is probably a lot more that needs to be fixed in this
file, but would like to leave that for another time.
Bug: https
The README lists 6 repositories needed, whereas there are now 7.
Nashorn is missing.
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/file/28be3d174c92/README
Stephen
Hello Ivan - see my replies inline:
I looked today at the readme doc for JDK 8 and came up with a couple of comments
I'll take a guess that you are referring to the top level
README-builds.html file
1) The doc does not mention nashhorn that is being pulled along with the other
On 2013-08-28 15:18, Ivan Krylov wrote:
I should have mentioned that the original subject is about the the "OpenJDK Build
README" document
On Aug 28, 2013, at 5:16 PM, Ivan Krylov
wrote:
Hello,
I looked today at the readme doc for JDK 8 and came up with a couple of comments
I should have mentioned that the original subject is about the the "OpenJDK
Build README" document
On Aug 28, 2013, at 5:16 PM, Ivan Krylov
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I looked today at the readme doc for JDK 8 and came up with a couple of
> comments
> 1) The doc does not
Hello,
I looked today at the readme doc for JDK 8 and came up with a couple of comments
1) The doc does not mention nashhorn that is being pulled along with the other
repos, perhaps it is worth mentioning in the doc.
2) I was under impression that for both JDK7 and JDK8 SP1 of MS Visual Studio
Changeset: f8405a0fa69c
Author:erikj
Date: 2013-08-26 13:43 +0200
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/build/rev/f8405a0fa69c
8023216: Feedback on README-builds.html
Reviewed-by: anthony, robilad, tbell
! README-builds.html
reciate the comprehensive readme page. Here's a list of
minor points of feedback:
"The set of repositories and what they contain": need to add nashorn
"warn — Default and very quiet": I presume this is still an in-progress goal?
I'm seeing almost 3000 lines of text i
d to be quiet, but at least hotspot is still being quite
>>>> noisy.
>>>>
>>>> /Erik
>>>>
>>>> On 2013-08-06 01:18, Dan Smith wrote:
>>>>> I'm building for the first time under the new infrastructure (late to the
>>>&g
noisy.
/Erik
On 2013-08-06 01:18, Dan Smith wrote:
I'm building for the first time under the new infrastructure (late to the
party, I know). I appreciate the comprehensive readme page. Here's a list of
minor points of feedback:
"The set of repositories and what they contain&
Dan,
It's nice to see other other people being "picky".
-- Jon
On 08/05/2013 04:18 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
I'm building for the first time under the new infrastructure (late to the
party, I know). I appreciate the comprehensive readme page. Here's a list of
minor
>> On 2013-08-06 01:18, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> I'm building for the first time under the new infrastructure (late to the
>>> party, I know). I appreciate the comprehensive readme page. Here's a list
>>> of minor points of feedback:
>>>
>
e the comprehensive readme page.
Here's a list of minor points of feedback:
"The set of repositories and what they contain": need to add nashorn
"warn — Default and very quiet": I presume this is still an
in-progress goal? I'm seeing almost 3000 lines of text in a fr
least hotspot is still being
quite noisy.
/Erik
On 2013-08-06 01:18, Dan Smith wrote:
I'm building for the first time under the new infrastructure (late to
the party, I know). I appreciate the comprehensive readme page.
Here's a list of minor points of feedback:
"The set of r
r the new infrastructure (late to the
party, I know). I appreciate the comprehensive readme page. Here's a list of
minor points of feedback:
"The set of repositories and what they contain": need to add nashorn
"warn — Default and very quiet": I presume this is still an
I'm building for the first time under the new infrastructure (late to the
party, I know). I appreciate the comprehensive readme page. Here's a list of
minor points of feedback:
"The set of repositories and what they contain": need to add nashorn
"warn — Default a
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
have the ability to build with 8 for tracking down
certain bugs.
Right. This is mainly about preventing mistakes, such as a run of configure
that picks up a JDK 8 that might happen to be in one's path, or someone who's
not aware of the rule I just clarified in the README. :-)
But of
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 the repositories. I think it's also worth discussing whether
the "compilation unit" is the code in a single repository or whether the code
in multiple repositories could be compiled together. The other extreme is where
we get to the point where individual modules can be compiled on their ow
se I can use JDK8. So how about:
"JDK 8 developers should not use JDK 8 as the boot JDK, to ensure that
code changes are compatible with building using JDK 7."
This suggested wording, along with Stuarts other additions to the README, look
fine. I think this should be pushed, and the othe
the same build
sequence as the old in order to generate equivalent bits). Although
you're anxious to get the README updates then it is a great topic and
now might be a great time to discuss it.
As least for the jaxws repository then I don't see any reason that it
has to be built by the b
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.
On 18/06/2013 10:21 AM, 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 ru
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
On 18/06/2013 10:21 AM, 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 ru
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 tryin
e 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 10:21 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 6/17/13 4:02 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Rule #1 No
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 10:21 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 6/17/13 4:02 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Rule #1 Nobody reads the README
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
convinc
ts of the
build where we mess with bootclasspath etc?
David
On 18/06/2013 10:21 AM, 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
c
David
On 18/06/2013 10:21 AM, 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
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
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
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
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 wordi
I noticed the same and filed JDK-8010258 yesterday. Tim Bell thinks
it's probably just an oversight.
Brad
On 3/19/2013 8:57 AM, David Chase wrote:
I was just browsing through, to be sure I was going to set the knobs right for
some performance testing, and noticed no mention of the reposito
I was just browsing through, to be sure I was going to set the knobs right for
some performance testing, and noticed no mention of the repository I had to
clone last night.
David
- Original Message -
> On 03/15/2013 03:55 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> > In file included from
> > /builddir/build/BUILD/java-1.8.0-openjdk/jdk8/build/jdk8.build/jdk/gensrc_x11wrappers/sizer.64.c:11:0:
> > /builddir/build/BUILD/java-1.8.0-openjdk/jdk8/jdk/src/solaris/native/sun/awt/awt_p.h:51:
On 03/15/2013 03:55 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> In file included from
> /builddir/build/BUILD/java-1.8.0-openjdk/jdk8/build/jdk8.build/jdk/gensrc_x11wrappers/sizer.64.c:11:0:
> /builddir/build/BUILD/java-1.8.0-openjdk/jdk8/jdk/src/solaris/native/sun/awt/awt_p.h:51:36:
> fatal error: X11/extensions/Xre
- Original Message -
> 2013/3/18 Andrew Hughes :
>
> >
> > Depends how many distros you intend to support.
>
> Well, I guess that if somebody doesn't use one between
> rhel/fedora/suse/ubuntu/mint/debian than most likely will figure out
> the exact commands anyway, I think those are still
2013/3/18 Andrew Hughes :
>
> Depends how many distros you intend to support.
Well, I guess that if somebody doesn't use one between
rhel/fedora/suse/ubuntu/mint/debian than most likely will figure out
the exact commands anyway, I think those are still good suggestions to
keep around.
Cheers,
Ma
- Original Message -
> 2013/3/15 Andrew Hughes :
> >> Might want to update configure to check for these libs on linux.
> >>
> >
> > Well that won't work everywhere:
> >
> > $ apt-get install libx11-dev libxext-dev libxt-dev libxrender-dev
> > bash: apt-get: command not found
> >
> > so th
- Original Message -
> On 03/15/2013 02:05 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >> Might want to update configure to check for these libs on linux.
> >>
> >
> > Well that won't work everywhere:
> >
> > $ apt-get install libx11-dev libxext-dev libxt-dev libxrender-dev
> > bash: apt-get: command no
2013/3/15 Andrew Hughes :
>> Might want to update configure to check for these libs on linux.
>>
>
> Well that won't work everywhere:
>
> $ apt-get install libx11-dev libxext-dev libxt-dev libxrender-dev
> bash: apt-get: command not found
>
> so this advice has limited usage anyway.
Actually the c
On 03/15/2013 02:05 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>> Might want to update configure to check for these libs on linux.
>>
>
> Well that won't work everywhere:
>
> $ apt-get install libx11-dev libxext-dev libxt-dev libxrender-dev
> bash: apt-get: command not found
>
> so this advice has limited usage a
- Original Message -
> I followed the instructions in the README and tried building on a
> new,
> blank ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS system. configure was able to detect that
> cups,
> asound & freetype libs were not installed, and provided helpful
> instructions to get them,
I followed the instructions in the README and tried building on a new,
blank ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS system. configure was able to detect that cups,
asound & freetype libs were not installed, and provided helpful
instructions to get them, but it failed to catch that X libraries were
not insta
an RFE (JDK-8007129) to add a configure option for locating JTREG which
would allow omission of the JT_HOME definition.
HTH,
Mike
On Mar 1 2013, at 09:18 , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> Please do not 'reply all', send concerns or issues to just the build-dev or
> build-infra-dev al
Please do not 'reply all', send concerns or issues to just the build-dev or
build-infra-dev aliases.
The very latest README-builds.html file is:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/raw-file/tip/README-builds.html
This documents the new build makefiles only.
As with all documen
FYI...
I am in the process of updating the OpenJDK8 build readme files. I'm working in
the build-infra/jdk8
forest with these files and will update the jdk8/build forest when they near
completion.
In the meantime, anyone wishing to view the current state can view them through
the build-
On 06/18/12 10:25, Andrew Haley wrote:
The README-builds.html instructions say...
Slow Builds:
...
Creating the javadocs can be very slow, if you are running
javadoc, consider skipping that step.
But there is no information I can find about how to skip that step: I
think it&#
On 18/06/2012 18:25, Andrew Haley wrote:
The README-builds.html instructions say...
Slow Builds:
...
Creating the javadocs can be very slow, if you are running
javadoc, consider skipping that step.
But there is no information I can find about how to skip that step: I
think
The README-builds.html instructions say...
Slow Builds:
...
Creating the javadocs can be very slow, if you are running
javadoc, consider skipping that step.
But there is no information I can find about how to skip that step: I
think it's NO_DOCS=true.
Andrew.
Changeset: 2f06b15e2439
Author:ewendeli
Date: 2012-05-03 14:17 +0200
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/build/rev/2f06b15e2439
7154130: Add Mac OS X Instructions to README-builds.html
Reviewed-by: ohair
Contributed-by: [email protected]
! README-builds.html
Hi,
Here is a link to an updated version where I've incorporated the feedback I got
from Scott and Dalibor: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewendeli/7154130/webrev.01/
Cheers,
Edvard
On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on some up
>
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 5:13 AM, Ray Kiddy wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/25/12 3:02 PM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on some updates in the README-bui
> On 4/25/12 3:02 PM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm working on some updates in the README-builds.html [1]. The first step
>>> is to add the Mac OS X platform. I have gathered the requirements from the
>>> Mac OS X port wiki [2][3].
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
