vs. platform.m4

Kim Barrett kim.barrett at
Tue Aug 15 17:28:42 UTC 2017

> On Aug 15, 2017, at 11:45 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at> wrote:
> Hi!
> I am currently preparing patches to add a couple of missing
> architectures to autoconf which we are using in Debian.
> For that, I looked at an earlier commit which added s390(x):
> changeset:   786:0874bb4707b7
> tag:         jdk8-b107
> user:        omajid
> date:        Wed Sep 11 12:08:34 2013 -0400
> summary:     8024320: Add s390(x) detection to platform.m4
> In this commit, the definitions were both added to platform.m4 and
> However, in Debian, we're carrying local
> patches for that which only modify platform.m4 and in Debian, we
> usually just run autoconf to make sure the generated configure
> scripts are up-to-date.
> So, in order to get these definitions upstream, should I patch both
> platform.m4 and or just the former?

There is a closed that also needs to be updated.
Since that can only be done by someone within Oracle, and the update
process affects both generated files, I think just the patch to platform.m4
is sufficient.  Your sponsor who does the push is responsible for the
regeneration of those files as part of preparing to push the change.  Just
remind your sponsor that the regeneration is needed.  Also note it in the
RFR, to remind any reviewers who want to test the change that they need
that step.

> Thanks,
> Adrian
> -- 
> .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz at
> `. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz at
>  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

More information about the hotspot-dev mailing list