On 23/04/2014 9:23 PM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
Yes, I did consider using some ifeq tricks like that -- but they are
rather ugly and unreadable and have the same problem that you want to
avoid: adding distribution-specific code into the open-source makefiles.
I see no short-term fix for this beyond what I suggested, as an
alternate to putting in the ORACLEJDK variable. But you would have to
maintain that change in your private repo - I see no way around that.
Given that:
ifndef OPENJDK
actually, implicitly means
ifdef ORACLEJDK
then all non-Oracle builds must presently declare themselves to be
OPENJDK implementations. To which they can add specific customizations.
My goal here is to have the public OpenJDK makefiles be in a state such
that custom distribution code can be added (in make/closed, src/closed,
or some such alternative location) without having to perform surgery on
the Makefiles and maintain the private changes. The mechanism is
already in place,it's just some leftover OracleJDK that hasn't made it
out of the open makefiles yet. If we could just cordon that off
somehow, then anyone could make a custom distribution by augmenting
OpenJDK with 'closed' style repositories -- without having to maintain
private, unrelated edits to jdk Makefiles.
You simply need to leave OPENJDK set to true to achieve that cordoning off.
Even if we move all OracleJDK specific stuff out of the open makefiles a
completely clean separation may not be possible:
- the customization hooks can not be everywhere and different
customizations may have different requirements
- if there are chunks of OpenJDK code (ie code currently part of both
OpenJDK and Oracle JDK) that are not wanted in your custom build then
you will still need to maintain private makefile changes to exclude
them. To fix this will need additional "modularization" of the build
with feature-selection (though not in a way that would violate the
platform specifications).
David
-----
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:10 AM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay ... so you don't set OPENJDK and thus from the make logic
perspective you are implicitly ORACLE_JDK. So first question: why
don't you set OPENJDK and then add blocks guarded by MY_JDK (or
whatever) for your custom stuff?
Second, the way to get a disjunction is to use the text functions eg
(untested but you should get the gist):
// OR
ifeq (true, findstring( $(OPENJDK) $(MYJDK), true)
// not-OR
ifneq (true, findstring( $(OPENJDK) $(MYJDK), true)
It's not as trivial as || etc but not too horrendously ugly :)
Does this help?
David
On 22/04/2014 11:10 PM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
Hi David,
Most of the problem resides in jdk/make, in the following files:
make/CompileDemos.gmk
make/CompileJavaClasses.gmk
make/CopyFiles.gmk
make/CopyIntoClasses.gmk
make/CreateSecurityJars.gmk
make/gensrc/GensrcIcons.gmk
make/Images.gmk
make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk
Biggest offender is problem CopyFiles.gmk (but
CreateSecurityJars.gmk
has a bit too). Basically in each situation where there's a "ifndef
OPENJDK", it encloses a block of code that access something in
src/closed or make/closed.
I did initially try to set a new variable in our build in an
attempt to
replace these areas with something like:
ifndef OPENJDK && ifndef PRIVATEJDK
... but there's apparently no convenient way of doing that in
makefiles
(conjunctions and disjunctions at the preprocessing level aren't
available -- and the workarounds are rather goofy). Duplicating the
OPENJDK only code quickly became unreasonable too -- a few of
the code
blocks are one-liners, but there's a bunch that are much more
involved
clauses.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:23 AM, David Holmes
<david.hol...@oracle.com <mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>
<mailto:david.holmes@oracle.__com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>>> wrote:
Hi Keith,
Sorry I have very limited cycles right now, and just had a
4 day
Easter break with anther long weekend ahead :)
You are right that the src/closed -> CUSTOM_SRC_DIR is somewhat
tangential to your issue.
The existence checks I suggested would be a check for whatever
file/directory is enough to indicate the "feature" is present.
Most uses of OPENJDK are really used to indicate
!ORACLE_JDK, so
introducing a third variation doesn't really fit.
Can you give a concrete example of something that
highlights this
problem for you and how your proposal addresses it? I may get a
better sense of things with specifics rather than trying to
generalize - because I don't see a general solution without
a lot of
refactoring.
Thanks,
David
On 22/04/2014 2:42 PM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
Hi Mark, et al.,
The sad reality of the situation is that there is indeed
Oracle-specific
code in the OpenJDK makefiles, and this code interferes
with our
customization of the JDK. Adding temporary signposts
to allow
us (and
others) to avoid this code will not make things worse. It
doesn't have
to be a distribution name -- we call it whatever you like:
TO_BE_REMOVED, KEITH_IS_A_PITA, whatever -- just
something to
latch onto
to deactivate that code when it is not needed. This
would provide
immediate relief to customizing distributors and give
Oracle
engineers
time to phase that code into closed makefiles (at which
time the
signposts can be removed completely).
Taking all this code out wholesale instead would be
great, and
this is
something I am totally willing to tackle and put the
effort in
on if I
was in a position to do so. Unfortunately, since this
is not fully
open-source, I can't do the refactoring needed to move
this code
into
the closed directories. And I though I could easily
strip the
code from
OpenJDK, this would totally muck with Oracle
distribution so any
patch I
would submit would surely be immediately rejected.
Considering that the code is question has been in
OpenJDK for
about 8
years now, I think it's safe to assume that it's not a
high priority
item for Oracle engineers to get this fixed. Which is
totally
fine, IMO
-- it's very much a tenant of open source development
that he
who has
the itch ought to be the one to scratch it, and different
entities are
expected to have different sets of priorities. No
doubt I'm
probably
the first one to complain about this :)
Unfortunately, I'm also in the unfortunate position of
having an
itch
(and willing fingernails), but an inability to scratch it.
So, where do we go from here and how can I help in this
effort? I
really do want to help, as this is an immediate problem
for me and I
can't afford to wait years for it to get fixed. I
still think that
signposts are a very reasonable compromise given that:
(1) It is something that can be done independently and
doesn't
require
Oracle engineering resources (other than reviews and
shepherding)
(2) It does not interfere with efforts to move closed
code out of
OpenJDK makefiles
(3) it can be done quickly
(4) It does not avoid the Makefile-checking for
existence of
required
files/directories (which reduces build-brittleness)
Mark/Dave, if I can't convince you that we should take this
path, can
you please suggest an alternative design? I'm not
picky -- if
we can
come up with something else that works then let's do it
and I'll
start
on it right away.
--
- Keith (itchy)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:23 PM,
<mark.reinh...@oracle.com <mailto:mark.reinh...@oracle.com>
<mailto:mark.reinhold@oracle.__com
<mailto:mark.reinh...@oracle.com>>
<mailto:mark.reinhold@oracle.
<mailto:mark.reinhold@oracle.>____com
<mailto:mark.reinhold@oracle.__com
<mailto:mark.reinh...@oracle.com>>>> wrote:
2014/4/16 14:52 -0700, david.hol...@oracle.com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>
<mailto:david.holmes@oracle.__com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>>
<mailto:david.holmes@oracle.
<mailto:david.holmes@oracle.>____com
<mailto:david.holmes@oracle.__com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>>>:
> src/closed is Oracle's "custom source" location
(hotspot
calls it
> alt_src). If we never saw src/closed in the
makefiles, only
> CUSTOM_SRC_DIR, and guarded with an existence
test for a
specific
> directory/file, then that should address your
problem.
That would
be a
> first step in moving things to the custom makefiles
where they
belong.
>
> I'm opposed to the ORACLEJDK variable because I
want to
maintain the
> pressure to get this fixed properly. If we hack
around
it then it
will
> never get cleaned up.
I think it's wrong, in principle, for OpenJDK
source code
to contain
identifiers naming specific vendors of JDK
implementations.
We're not
quite there at the moment, but let's please not
add any more.
- Mark
