Current Status of OpenJDK 8 for mips64el
aoqi at loongson.cn
Mon Aug 27 14:32:27 UTC 2018
Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> 于2018年8月22日周三 下午5:21写道：
> On 2018-08-21 19:33, Ao Qi wrote:
> > Hi Magnus,
> > Thanks for you reply. Please see inline:
> > Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> 于2018年8月21日周二 下午5:15写道：
> >> The current mips-port project is more or less abandoned. There is just
> >> Dalibor as lead, and no other registrered contributors.  No serious
> >> activitity has happend on the mailing lists for years, and there is not
> >> even a hg repository associated with the project.
> >> It does seem like a good idea to revive it for bringing in your mips
> >> port into a more current version of OpenJDK.
> >> I would suggest that, if Dalibor is happy with it, he should pass on the
> >> role as mips-port lead to you, since you are actively pursuing the mips
> >> port at this point.
> > If possible, I am willing to take this responsibility.
> That sounds good!
> Formally, Dalibor would need to resign as Project Lead. Then, a new
> Project Lead can be nominated and voted upon by the Group Leads of the
> sponsoring groups. In this case, the Porters Group is the sole sponsor,
> so the Project Lead can elect a new Project Lead in a single stroke. :-)
> And, conveniently, the Group Lead of the Porters Group is also Dalibor,
> so he can do all of this in a single email. ;-)
> >> In any case, the first thing to to is for the mips-port lead to request
> >> a new repository for the up to date port. The project lead needs to send
> >> a mail to ops at openjdk.java.net and specify the name of the repository.
> >> My suggestion would be "mips-port/jdk" if the intention is to track the
> >> current jdk/jdk master, or "mips-port/jdk11" (or jdk8, or ...) if the
> >> intention is to track a specific, released, version.
> > I support this suggestion. We already have a jdk8 MIPS64 port and we
> > will maintain it for a long time, so I think mips-port/jdk8 or
> > mips-port/jdk8u may be needed.
> If you intend to track jdk8u (which I recommend), then you should name
> it after that.
In this case, "mips-port/jdk8" should be created first, then another
"mips-port/jdk8u" should be created for upgrade and maintenance? Do I
understand it right?
> > I do have plans to upgrade our port to
> > the latest jdk/jdk master. Actually, I have done some research and
> > experiment in the past few days. However, I can't guarantee how long
> > it will take to get the job done.
> Then it's just as well to request a mips-port/jdk repo while you're at
> it, I think.
I think we can do this work (upgrade to the jdk/jdk master) internally
in our company. When it is done, then I try to request a mips-port/jdk
repo or even request to merge into the master.
> > I have one question about the name. Our port is for MIPS64, and I know
> > some companies are doing MIPS32 port. I am not sure whether they will
> > upstream their work. If yes, it is not known yet that whether the code
> > is merged into "mips-port/jdk11" (or jdk8, or ...) or into different
> > repositories. So which name (mips-port or mips64-port) are more
> > suitable for the current situation?
> Unless there's a requirement that repo names must match the project
> names, it sounds like mips64-port is more logical. Such matching seem to
> be the general rule, but otoh I find repos that does not fit project
> names either, so maybe it's a flexible rule.
> Even if no mips32 port ever materializes, I think this is a good choice
> of name. If your port is only supporting mips64 and you have no
> intention of doing anything different, then it's better to be explicit.
> That way everyone's expectations on the port is at the right level.
Currently we mainly focus on MIPS64.
However, if some one is doing MIPS32 port, we are willing to help and
> >> Once a repo is in place, I can give further guidance in how to proceed.
> > Thank you.
> > Cheers,
> > Ao Qi
> >>  http://openjdk.java.net/census#mips-port
More information about the porters-dev