RFA: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
sgehwolf at redhat.com
Thu Jan 10 09:40:38 UTC 2019
On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 04:58 +0000, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 17:49, Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Please approve this 8u backport request related to ppc64le. When using
> > a ppc64le build from 8u and pulling in natives from Maven etc. users
> > might end up getting ppc64 (BE) binaries because of the way the JDK
> > reports itself to the user.
> > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139
> > webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/
> > Review thread of this 8u change:
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2018-September/023417.html
> > The 8u change has been reviewed by David Holmes, Goetz Lindenmaier,
> > Erik Joelsson. Not all changes from JDK 9 apply for the backport.
> > Testing: Linux ppc64le/be builds and verifying os.arch property reports
> > correctly. No change for ppc64be builds.
> > Thanks,
> > Severin
> Why was this commit credited as 'sgehwolf' rather than the original
> author, 'asmundak'?
Because it's a rewrite of the 9 changeset to make it relevant for 8u?
It made sense to me at the time.
Take build changes for example. The build system between 9+ and 8 is
very different. I personally wouldn't expect attributions for the 9+
changes to be present for 8 build changes for the same bug.
Question is where to draw the line :)
> It's also missing the original Contributed-by line:
> 'Contributed-by: Andrew Hughes <gnu.andrew at redhat.com>, Alexander
> Smundak <asmundak at google.com>'
> Can we please make sure to retain the original authorship when making
> such backports in future, please?
Yes and no. If the patch were a clean backport from 9 then it would
make sense. Otherwise it's debatable which attributions need to be
present. Are there good guidelines for this sort of thing?
More information about the jdk8u-dev