On 2017-06-08 11:28, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
On 2017-06-08 10:56, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Erik,
My only concern is that when doing the bundling, we assume that
FREETYPE_LICENSE is set, but no verification of this is done in
configure. That is, either should the SetupCopyFiles block be
conditional on the license file existing, or the code in
LIB_SETUP_FREETYPE should verify that we have a license if bundling
is enabled. I think enforcing a license file when bundling is the
reight way, so this means adding a check in configure.
I disagree. SetupCopyFiles is designed to work fine if the FILES input
is empty. It will just generate 0 rules in that case, so this is
intended from my part.
I didn't know that. Well, in that case, your code works.
However, I'm not sure I like that behavior of SetupCopyFiles. Sounds
like it's too easy to get something lost without a warning, e.g. if you
mistype a variable name somewhere. But let's discuss that at another
time. :-)
I do make sure that it's empty in configure so we don't accidentally
get rubbish in it however. We do not want to enforce FREETYPE_LICENSE
to be set as we are not going to bundle a license for GPL (default)
builds, but only when using a different license for the rest of OpenJDK.
Ok, sounds good then.
/Magnus
/Erik
Apart from that it looks good.
I'm also ok if you push this code as it is in jdk9 and file a
follow-up bug for jdk 10 of adding the verification to configure.
/Magnus
On 2017-06-07 16:14, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
Please review this late change for JDK 9. It adds a new configure
parameter --with-freetype-license, which can optionally be set to
point to a license file for freetype. If freetype bundling is
enabled, this license file will be included in the java.desktop.jmod
file and subsequently in the images/{jdk,jre}/legal/java.desktop
directory.
Note that freetype comes with a dual license. For normal GPL OpenJDK
builds, no additional license is needed as freetype is also GPL.
This feature is only needed when someone is licensing OpenJDK with a
different license (which the Oracle reference implementation builds
do).
This change is considered noreg-doc and will go into jdk9.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178064
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8178064/webrev.01
/Erik
