Phil.Race at Sun.COM
Sat Aug 4 04:02:19 UTC 2007
Ted Neward wrote:
> One other question: does the new build still need an
> ALT_CLOSED_JDK_IMPORT_PATH that points to a valid JDK 7 instance?
There was no change in the overall build architecture in b17
In that regard whatever Kelly did for b16 is still the case in b17,
which AFAIK means it can be just the sparse binary plugs *OR* a full JDK ..
> Ted Neward
> Java, .NET, XML Services
> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: build-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:build-dev-
>> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Igor Nekrestyanov
>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:39 PM
>> To: Dan Fabulich
>> Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net; Anthony Petrov; Phil Race; build-
>> dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: encumbrances update
>>>> My tests are not "ideal" for number of reasons:
>>>> 2) I was using binary plugs created from my personal workspace.
>>>> I believe they should be the same as those to be published with
>>>> b17 code drop but this is my assumption.
>>> We know for certain that this assumption is FALSE. No binary plug
>>> given to the public has ever built successfully on Windows; since your
>>> personal plugs have been working for you for months, we can conclude
>>> that there's something critically different between your plugs and the
>>> plugs we get.
>> Prior to introduction of the "binary plugs" in the makefile (starting
>> from the b16)
>> it was easy to use our internal product builds to import encumbered bits
>> for openjdk build.
>> So, internal openjdk builds were easier.
>> However, since b16 we need to export image of binary plugs from the
>> product build and
>> use these exported images for openjdk build.
>> I think (but i am not 100% sure) that same procedure is used to export
>> binary plug bits for people outside of @sun.com.
>> So now there is fewer chance to have discrepancies (and after all
>> t2k.lib is not needed anymore :) ).
>>> But who knows? Maybe we'll get lucky this time. :-)
>> I can hardly wait to get feedback on build status.
>> Hopefully this will be success report :)
>>>> BTW, for windows build you will need to build freetype.dll (i tried
>>>> only dll built with visualc). I believe that freetype build system
>>>> does not generate .dll on windows and therefore some manual tweaking
>>>> of freetype makefiles (and sources) might be necessary.
>>> Sounds like fun! :-) Will the documentation include a patch? Or just
>>> some tips on how to make a .DLL? What source files needed to change?
>> No, there is no patch or detailed instruction in the openjdk docs.
>> You can follow "official" freetype approach -
>> I believe it worked for me to prepare 32 bit binary.
>> Perhaps someday they will finally simplify it and we can just run make :)
>> In addition to described changes you may also want to tweak ftoptions.h
>> to enable subpixel rendering.
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/933 - Release Date: 8/2/2007
>> 2:22 PM
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/933 - Release Date: 8/2/2007
> 2:22 PM
More information about the discuss