RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the website

Mark Wielaard mark at
Sun Dec 21 15:22:40 UTC 2008

Hi Max,

On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 21:45 +0800, Max (Weijun) Wang wrote:
> >> 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs:
> >>    Build OK, and -version shows openjdk...
> >>
> >> 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos:
> >>    Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK...
> >> This is probably the version you find on
> >>
> > 1) is what we do with IcedTea, although we don't publish any binaries,
> > but the various distros do.
> > 2) Where can I find these?
> I don't know if they are published anywhere. You can try to build  
> yourself, and I believe googling "openjdk build -icedtea" would tell  
> you how people are playing with it. ;)

Yes, it isn't hard at all to build. If you use IcedTea with OpenJDK it
really is just ./ && ./configure && make and then you don't
even need any binary plugs. But people were asking for these binaries to
do some comparative testing against how Sun builds them. So if you could
make 2) available that would be great.

> > 3) Why are these not published under the same terms as the rest of
> > OpenJDK is?
> > Are these closed repos something different from the binary plugs in  
> > 2)?
> The major difference is the Java Plugin, and the rest should be the  
> sources for those binary plugs.

Aha. Is the inclusion of the Java Plugin the reason for the restricted
terms they are distributed under? Could you not make the plugin part of
the normal assembly-exception? If not, could you make them available
under the normal OpenJDK terms without the plugin?



More information about the discuss mailing list