Hi - is there a group of people working on OpenJDK 8 for OpenBSD?
kurt at intricatesoftware.com
Mon May 4 23:55:06 UTC 2015
No need to be sorry. Thanks for taking an interest in the porting
On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 13:18 -0400, Bryan C. Everly wrote:
> OK. Sorry all.
> The 5.7 release of OpenBSD came out Friday evening so I had to get
> some upgrades done. I'm going to dive back into this and see how far
> I get.
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Kurt Miller
> <kurt at intricatesoftware.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 20:47 -0400, Bryan C. Everly wrote:
> > Kurt,
> > I'm wrapping my head around gnu autoconfigure tonight.
> > It looks like we need to modify the .m4 files in the
> > directory and then it generates the generated-configure.sh
> script from
> > there, right?
> Yea, that sounds right.
> > If that's the case, I can start working on patches to the
> *.m4 files
> > to seed the diffs you sent from generated-configure.sh if
> you are OK
> > with that (I know we need to wait until my userid shows up
> on the
> > contributor list before we can do any of this officially).
> Sure we can share diffs here now. When your name shows up on
> the list, I
> can start committing the ones that are ready.
> > Next question - how much can we mess with the default "bsd"
> > Should we be doing specific things in an "openbsd" block so
> as not to
> > mess up the FreeBSD port (my assumption is that this
> mercurial tree
> > builds successfully under FreeBSD - right)?
> Right. For the areas where OpenBSD differs, we need to isolate
> changes from FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, Solaris, etc. While our
> trees are
> separate from the main tree, we aspire to keep our changes in
> a state
> that would be acceptable and non-breaking to other platforms
> so they
> could be merged back into the main trees.
> Note that many times the generic bsd category blocks are
> sufficient and
> there's no need to call out duplicate OpenBSD blocks when the
> bsd one
> > I'm thinking that's how we should be operating. If you
> are ok with
> > that, i'll start making the necessary changes to get the
> common things
> > in "bsd" and the things that are unique to OpenBSD in their
> > sections.
> Right. We're on the same page.
> > I think I can get the freetype stuff fixed (if I'm following
> the *.m4
> > files correctly) as well as the location for giflib
> straightened out.
> Okay. I was thinking that perhaps a try_link test would be
> better for
> freetype libs then the current filename comparison and it
> likely could
> be the same for all bsd.
> > Finally, the myriad of --with* settings on the command line
> > guessing need to be baked into the *.m4 scripts if we are
> running on
> > in OpenBSD? If so, then I can tackle getting that to work
> I'm not sure. Look to Linux and macos to see if those settings
> defaulted someplace. I would mimic their behavior here.
> Meaning if
> building on linux or macos, the large set of --with settings
> are needed
> there too, then I think we should conform to that pattern here
> In the end an OpenBSD port makefile will set all the env vars,
> args, etc and its not really an issue to have a large set of
> args in general.
> > What do you think? Am I on the right track?
> Yes for sure.
More information about the bsd-port-dev