Sounds good and looks good.
/Erik
On 2019-12-05 20:18, Henry Jen wrote:
OK, so I created an issue[1] for follow up for Windows build and reverted the
change in flags-cflags.m4, if nothing else, I’ll push without another webrev
pinging that I get an +1 from someone in build-de, Erik?
[1]
OK, so I created an issue[1] for follow up for Windows build and reverted the
change in flags-cflags.m4, if nothing else, I’ll push without another webrev
pinging that I get an +1 from someone in build-de, Erik?
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8235461
Cheers,
Henry
> On Dec 5,
On 12/5/19 12:41 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 05/12/2019 08:16, Henry Jen wrote:
Hi,
Updated webrev[1] reflect comments since last webrev. Vicente had
done all the heavy-lifting and hand over to me to finish up.
Changes to symbols is reverted, as we expect that only need to be
updated in
On 05/12/2019 08:16, Henry Jen wrote:
Hi,
Updated webrev[1] reflect comments since last webrev. Vicente had done all the
heavy-lifting and hand over to me to finish up.
Changes to symbols is reverted, as we expect that only need to be updated in
next release by running
Hi,
Updated webrev[1] reflect comments since last webrev. Vicente had done all the
heavy-lifting and hand over to me to finish up.
Changes to symbols is reverted, as we expect that only need to be updated in
next release by running make/scripts/generate-symbol-data.sh.
The jar files are
Hi Vicente,
It looks like the update to make/data/symbols/symbols removes the
jdk.pack module from the history JDKs 9, 10, and 11 when --release is used.
If that is the case, it would be incorrect since historically the
jdk.pack module was present in those releases.
Thanks,
-Joe
On
On 11/22/19 1:30 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8234542/webrev.03/
make/lib/Lib-jdk.pack.gmk should be removed.
make/scripts/compare_exceptions.sh.incl
Should ./lib/libunpack.so also be removed?
make/scripts/compare.sh
line 535-543 invokes
Hello,
On 2019-11-22 13:30, Vicente Romero wrote:
Hi all,
On 11/22/19 3:21 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 21/11/2019 19:53, Vicente Romero wrote:
Hi,
I think I have covered all the proposed fixes so far. This is the
last iteration of the webrev [1], all the current changes are in
this one,
Hi all,
On 11/22/19 3:21 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 21/11/2019 19:53, Vicente Romero wrote:
Hi,
I think I have covered all the proposed fixes so far. This is the
last iteration of the webrev [1], all the current changes are in this
one, the code hasn't been split into different webrevs.
On 21/11/2019 19:53, Vicente Romero wrote:
Hi,
I think I have covered all the proposed fixes so far. This is the last
iteration of the webrev [1], all the current changes are in this one,
the code hasn't been split into different webrevs. I'm also forwarding
to build-dev as there are some
Hi Mandy,
On 11/21/19 5:45 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
CSR needs to mention that jar -n option is removed. I made minor edit
to the CSR to state that jdk.pack module is removed.
thanks for the changes, I added a mention to the jar -n option,
Mandy
Thanks,
Vicente
On 11/21/19 2:22 PM,
CSR needs to mention that jar -n option is removed. I made minor edit
to the CSR to state that jdk.pack module is removed.
Mandy
On 11/21/19 2:22 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
please wait, I found some additional dependencies on module jdk.pack,
will submit another webrev, sorry
Vicente
On
please wait, I found some additional dependencies on module jdk.pack,
will submit another webrev, sorry
Vicente
On 11/21/19 2:53 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
Hi,
I think I have covered all the proposed fixes so far. This is the last
iteration of the webrev [1], all the current changes are in
Hi,
I think I have covered all the proposed fixes so far. This is the last
iteration of the webrev [1], all the current changes are in this one,
the code hasn't been split into different webrevs. I'm also forwarding
to build-dev as there are some build related changes too. The CSR for
this
Correction ...
On 21/11/2019 9:10 am, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Vicente,
Not sure the best mailing list for this review ... jdk-dev may not be
well monitored.
Is there a separate review thread for the actual tool removal (jdk.pack)
I overlooked the removal of jdk.pack (scrolling too fast
On 21/11/2019 11:01 am, Mandy Chung wrote:
(bcc jdk-dev. The review can continue on core-libs-dev)
Hi Vicente,
The following files should also be removed.
make/launcher/Launcher-jdk.pack.gmk
There are a number of build changes to be made:
./make/autoconf/compare.sh.in:export
(bcc jdk-dev. The review can continue on core-libs-dev)
Hi Vicente,
The following files should also be removed.
make/launcher/Launcher-jdk.pack.gmk
test/jdk/java/util/jar/Pack200/*
The following files reference pack200 in its comment. I'm not sure if
they need update or not.
moving the discussion to core-libs. I have updated the webrev [1], after
removing the reference found by David and another one I found with a
help text at:
src/jdk.jartool/share/classes/sun/tools/jar/resources/jar.properties
Thanks,
Vicente
[1]
18 matches
Mail list logo
