david.holmes at oracle.com
Tue Apr 22 12:23:05 UTC 2014
Sorry I have very limited cycles right now, and just had a 4 day Easter
break with anther long weekend ahead :)
You are right that the src/closed -> CUSTOM_SRC_DIR is somewhat
tangential to your issue.
The existence checks I suggested would be a check for whatever
file/directory is enough to indicate the "feature" is present.
Most uses of OPENJDK are really used to indicate !ORACLE_JDK, so
introducing a third variation doesn't really fit.
Can you give a concrete example of something that highlights this
problem for you and how your proposal addresses it? I may get a better
sense of things with specifics rather than trying to generalize -
because I don't see a general solution without a lot of refactoring.
On 22/04/2014 2:42 PM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
> Hi Mark, et al.,
> The sad reality of the situation is that there is indeed Oracle-specific
> code in the OpenJDK makefiles, and this code interferes with our
> customization of the JDK. Adding temporary signposts to allow us (and
> others) to avoid this code will not make things worse. It doesn't have
> to be a distribution name -- we call it whatever you like:
> TO_BE_REMOVED, KEITH_IS_A_PITA, whatever -- just something to latch onto
> to deactivate that code when it is not needed. This would provide
> immediate relief to customizing distributors and give Oracle engineers
> time to phase that code into closed makefiles (at which time the
> signposts can be removed completely).
> Taking all this code out wholesale instead would be great, and this is
> something I am totally willing to tackle and put the effort in on if I
> was in a position to do so. Unfortunately, since this is not fully
> open-source, I can't do the refactoring needed to move this code into
> the closed directories. And I though I could easily strip the code from
> OpenJDK, this would totally muck with Oracle distribution so any patch I
> would submit would surely be immediately rejected.
> Considering that the code is question has been in OpenJDK for about 8
> years now, I think it's safe to assume that it's not a high priority
> item for Oracle engineers to get this fixed. Which is totally fine, IMO
> -- it's very much a tenant of open source development that he who has
> the itch ought to be the one to scratch it, and different entities are
> expected to have different sets of priorities. No doubt I'm probably
> the first one to complain about this :)
> Unfortunately, I'm also in the unfortunate position of having an itch
> (and willing fingernails), but an inability to scratch it.
> So, where do we go from here and how can I help in this effort? I
> really do want to help, as this is an immediate problem for me and I
> can't afford to wait years for it to get fixed. I still think that
> signposts are a very reasonable compromise given that:
> (1) It is something that can be done independently and doesn't require
> Oracle engineering resources (other than reviews and shepherding)
> (2) It does not interfere with efforts to move closed code out of
> OpenJDK makefiles
> (3) it can be done quickly
> (4) It does not avoid the Makefile-checking for existence of required
> files/directories (which reduces build-brittleness)
> Mark/Dave, if I can't convince you that we should take this path, can
> you please suggest an alternative design? I'm not picky -- if we can
> come up with something else that works then let's do it and I'll start
> on it right away.
> - Keith (itchy)
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:23 PM, <mark.reinhold at oracle.com
> <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.com>> wrote:
> 2014/4/16 14:52 -0700, david.holmes at oracle.com
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>:
> > src/closed is Oracle's "custom source" location (hotspot calls it
> > alt_src). If we never saw src/closed in the makefiles, only
> > CUSTOM_SRC_DIR, and guarded with an existence test for a specific
> > directory/file, then that should address your problem. That would
> be a
> > first step in moving things to the custom makefiles where they
> > I'm opposed to the ORACLEJDK variable because I want to maintain the
> > pressure to get this fixed properly. If we hack around it then it
> > never get cleaned up.
> I think it's wrong, in principle, for OpenJDK source code to contain
> identifiers naming specific vendors of JDK implementations. We're not
> quite there at the moment, but let's please not add any more.
> - Mark
More information about the build-dev