Producing community binaries for OpenJDK
martijnverburg at gmail.com
Tue Mar 14 09:07:14 UTC 2017
Providing scripts for the other platforms (Windows, Mac OS X and more
esoteric ones) is definitely a goal for this effort. But I
wholeheartedly agree that we should leverage / partner with IcedTea.
No point in reinventing the wheel!
I think the GitHub platform will simply also get more visibility /
publicity for these types of efforts (I'll admit this is a guess as
infrastructure does not community make).
On 13 March 2017 at 10:22, Mario Torre <neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-03-13 10:38 GMT+01:00 dalibor topic <dalibor.topic at oracle.com>:
>> Sure - I am still curious what the specific technical differences are
>> between what you're planning to do and what's been done before with IcedTea.
>> I assume some kind of 'learning from past' or differential analysis has been
>> done by someone before the idea was shared more broadly, so it would be
>> interesting to see it shared with this list.
> I'm curious too.
> From what I can say, IcedTea produces a common infrastructure for
> downstream Linux distributions to do their own packaging. I'm not sure
> how well would do in moving this work, and I mean the actual builds,
> upstream though, since each build is very specific to the various
> Linux distributions and it's simply impossible to take care of all of
> them, this is a task better fit to downstream instead.
> I would be more akin to have community builds on one or two default
> target to replace the Oracle EA builds for OpenJDK, just because the
> license of those builds is sub-optimal, but the amount of work needed
> for that maybe be overkill for the relative little benefit they would
> provide, and probably the reason why nobody has done that before.
> Of course, Windows and Mac builds are slightly different topic, since
> those are less variable environment (just in the sense there's just
> one vendor, so relatively less differences to account for). But even
> here, we do a number of community projects already that can be
> contributed to instead.
> There are indeed a number of architectures that are not covered
> officially with builds, but I'm not sure if providing a binary for
> those is worth a project, for architectures that need specific
> configurations and changes you can either decide for a full port, or
> contribute to the build project as a whole, and, for more exoteric
> builds, just contribute to IcedTea or create your own downstream,
> since again, I'm not sure this belongs to OpenJDK, but perhaps I'm
> misunderstanding the original idea?
> pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
> Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF
> Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens
> Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
> OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/
> Please, support open standards:
More information about the adoption-discuss