Producing community binaries for OpenJDK

Chris Newland cnewland at
Mon Mar 13 08:42:22 UTC 2017

Hi Tim, all,

I see this as worthwhile effort.

IMO this doesn't need to meet the OpenJDK definition of a "Project" to be
useful activity and the AdoptOpenJDK GitHub feels like the right place to
host the "deliverables" (scripts etc).

Tim, I run a community OpenJFX build server ( which is
mostly used by the ARM / Raspberry Pi community to restore the JavaFX
functionality dropped from the Oracle ARM JDKs but can also be used to add
JavaFX to Azul's Zulu JDK (another OpenJDK build).

I'd be happy to contribute to this effort with my experience with OpenJDK
ARM builds if that's useful.

Kind regards,


On Sun, March 12, 2017 13:31, Tim Ellison wrote:
> On 11/03/17 10:10, dalibor topic wrote:
>> On 09.03.2017 18:43, Ben Evans wrote:
>>> I'm looping in adoption-discuss, AdoptOpenJDK and Martijn, as I'm not
>>>  sure how many other folk are reading openjdk-binary.
>> As far as I can tell that mailing list seems private - i.e. the 'view
>> this discussion' URL below is not readable for me, so I'm not sure if I
>> have enough context about what is being proposed to comment.
>>> Adoption folk - what do we think? Does this fit under the existing
>>> structure?
>> The Adoption Group in OpenJDK does not host code. That's what Projects
>> do. ;)
> Right, and that's why I was tentative in asking if this is the right
> place to hold the discussions.  I came here because of the related history
> of this group's activities, but if it is not a good fit I'm happy to
> revert to the google groups discussion list.
>> From the perspective of considering a separate OpenJDK Project that
>> collects various source code build scripts, patches, folk wisdom, etc. -
>>  if I understand the purpose of the thread - I think the Build Group
>> would be a better place to discuss it, as people actually building the
>> JDK across many platforms are already there.
> No, it would not be a separate OpenJDK project, rather the adopt group
> would be discussing how the build scripts are executed to produce a usable
> binary, and have a shared place to work on the building of OpenJDK.  Of
> course, if there are any requests of the build group, etc discussion will
> take place over there.
>> In fact, one such Project already exists:
>> . It's not clear to me what if
>>  anything different from it is being discussed or proposed here.
> Hopefully you see that it is not another project, but rather more
> "accelerate adoption" work.
> Regards,
> Tim
>>> Tim - assuming that it does, what practical things can AdoptOpenJDK
>>> do to help you?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison at>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I've now got some cycles for actually doing some build work around
>>>> OpenJDK.
>>>> There are a couple of colleagues here at IBM who can also contribute
>>>>  to the build process.
>>>> It seems that the closest starting point for community build/test
>>>> is the fine work that was done as part of the Adopt OpenJDK project;
>>>> though it looks like that has been quiet for a while?
>>>> So we have started "from scratch" this week and are writing some
>>>> build scripts we'd like to move into the open and share with folks.
>>>> It
>>>> will start simple, building Linux x86_64 and rolling out to Mac, PPC,
>>>> and Windows. Likewise starting with some JTReg testing, and building
>>>> that out to more meaningful tests.  We like Git, so it's currently
>>>> housed in a private Git
>>>> repo.
>>>> The goal is to have a continuous integration system pulling from
>>>> OpenJDK and
>>>> producing community binaries that are built using a fully open build
>>>>  system, so everyone can validate how it was created, and the
>>>> dependencies and patches that it includes, etc.  Of course, the idea
>>>> is that changes that are relevant to OpenJDK source end up back
>>>> there; but there will always be build specific-files, and
>>>> point-in-time patches required to produce a working binary.
>>>> If there is enough flexibility at the Adopt OpenJDK project, I'd
>>>> prefer to push the code there and continue working under that
>>>> organization; but understand if that project would prefer we set up
>>>> our own space elsewhere.
>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to open up IBM's Java build
>>>> system (believe me, you wouldn't want to have that!); it's much
>>>> simpler than that -- just a CI clone/build/test/publish cycle, and
>>>> then see where things go from there.
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> Tim
>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>>>> number 741598.
>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>>>> PO6 3AU
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups
>>>> "OpenJDK Binary Gateway" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>> send an email to openjdk-binary-gateway+unsubscribe at
>>>>  To post to this group, send email to
>>>> openjdk-binary-gateway at To view this discussion on
>>>> the web, visit
>>>> For more options, visit

More information about the adoption-discuss mailing list