Fwd: Official and community supported build platforms for JDK 8 and 9
sadhak001 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 24 22:52:12 UTC 2014
Chris good one! Bring them on, I'm sure Martijn will agree as well.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Chris Newland <cnewland at chrisnewland.com>
> Hi Martijn,
> Looks good. How about a column for whether the OpenJDK tests pass? Maybe a
> date column or hg version tag so we know what version of the OpenJDK
> codebase it built against?
> I'm happy to volunteer reporting build status for Debian (7 & 8) if that's
> One last question - for me OpenJDK is only useful when it includes
> OpenJFX. I've got some Debian scripts for building both and installing JFX
> into the JDK image. Happy to donate those if useful?
> I saw the OpenJFX 9-dev repo was recently opened. Is part of the Adoption
> group mission to promote OpenJFX?
> On Mon, November 24, 2014 20:18, Martijn Verburg wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Since many of you are first time build enthusiasts - here's a very useful
> > link.
> > Cheers,
> > Martijn
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Omair Majid <omajid at redhat.com>
> > Date: 21 November 2014 at 20:55
> > Subject: Re: Official and community supported build platforms for JDK 8
> > and 9
> > To: Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com>
> > Cc: jdk8-dev at openjdk.java.net, build-dev <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>,
> > jdk9-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Hi,
> > Thanks for creating this!
> > * Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> [2014-11-21 13:22]:
> >> To help address this, I've created a publicly available wiki page:
> >> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+build+platforms
> > Can you clarify what "Works correctly" means? Does it mean just building
> > or does it include building and running? For example, OpenJDK 8 probably
> > fails to build (or at least it used to fail to build) on most Linux
> > distributions that were using Make 4.0. A patch was needed to fix that,
> > but when that was fixed, OpenJDK 8 would build and run just fine. In
> > like this, is it better to say "works correctly" and/or "builds with
> > workarounds" or something else entirely?
> > How about adding a column named "last checked" or "last updated" to make
> > it obvious when building on that platform was last checked?
> > Thanks,
> > Omair
> > --
> > PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/)
> > Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681
@theNeomatrix369 <http://twitter.com/theNeomatrix369>* | **Blog
<http://neomatrix369.wordpress.com>** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate
(@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs)
*Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector
<https://github.com/MutabilityDetector>* | **Bitbucket
<https://bitbucket.org/neomatrix369>* * | **Github
<https://github.com/neomatrix369>* * | **LinkedIn
*Come to Devoxx UK 2015:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/
*Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come
chasing after you!*
More information about the adoption-discuss