Provide zipped javadoc archive from make

Jiri Vanek jvanek at
Thu Feb 25 15:04:49 UTC 2016

On 02/25/2016 03:50 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Hello Jiri,
> Adding a build target for creating bundles of all our images, including docs, is currently on my
> todo here:
> I believe our intention there is use tar.gz bundles for the most part. I would assume your usecase
> would require zip? This is certainly something to take into consideration if that's the case.

Hello! Thank you for reply!

And thanx for link, I was not expecting somebody is already on it:)

Both zip api and gzip api are part of java, so most tool can be expected to work both with tar.gz 
and zip  however... Sometimes the tools are expecting javadocs in jar - so having the docs tar.gzed 
is killing this.
Most troubeling case may be my beloved netbeans. I'm sure (tried few seconds ago) that they are not 
able to add tar.gz-ed javadoc.
Because of NB and because of jar~=zip I would rather go with zip as default. But if gzip have 
somehow better compression, then go with gzip, and force tools (like NB) to allow to use it.

Was there some special reason why you had chosen gzip over zip?



> /Erik
> On 2016-02-25 03:24, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> Hello!
>> Firs, sorry for spamming three lists but imho it is really touching all of them - it will be
>> change in makefile, and it is new feature for old docs....
>> Currently, when you run make all, javadoc is generated as directory. I do not wont to touch this.
>> However, I would like to add target, which will pack generated javadoc... Lets say correctly to
>> zip archive.
>> Having javadoc as directory have its advantages, but having javadoc as archive have another set of
>> advantages. (eg main user of javadoc are IDEs. and all IDEs I know support archived javadocs. All
>> library javadocs distributed over  web are distributed as zips, and they are not expected to be
>> unpacked. Many tools crate archved javadocs by default and so on...)
>> I'm packaging openjdk for fedora, and next to java-1.X.0-openjdk-javadoc, and I wonted to provide
>> java-1.X.0-openjdk-javadoc-zip so users have an choice to select zipped/unzipped javadoc depending
>> on theirs usage. You may argue that size do not meter, but having four (6,7,8,9) jdks on machine,
>> and so having 4 javadocs - it metres if it is 4x250mb or 4x50mb.
>> Also, when I was preparing this simple patch to my packages, I realised - am I compressing all? Am
>> I compressing it correctly and in best way? Is delivering of *JDK's* javadoc as archive even safe?
>> So I would say that having this supported in upstream is much better then just pack zip it in
>> distribution packages.
>> What do you think?
>> If you are interested, I will elaborate patch for jdk9 with wish for jdk8. Change should be
>> simple, and the benefits worthy.
>> Thanx!
>>  J.

More information about the build-dev mailing list