Hi I've done that in commit 61a4f434029376f30410cf27dbdd93c1f6011f21
Regards Damjan On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 1:32 PM Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> wrote: > Hi Damjan, > > Maybe it would be possible to only overwrite those JDKs with vendor > "private build" by "OpenJDK"? > > This would be a workaround for 4.1.7 and we could further improve it for > the next release. > > Regards, > > Matthias > > > Am 20.08.19 um 03:58 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 9:30 PM Matthias Seidel < > matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> > > wrote: > > > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Am 18.08.19 um 20:26 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: > >>> That's great news. Thank you for testing. > >>> > >>> I am busy so it will take me a few days to finalize the patch and > commit > >> it. > >> > >> Looking forward to your commit. I will then cherry-pick it for AOO42X > >> and AOO417. > >> > >> > > It's actually quite a difficult issue to fix properly. > > > > The vendor name is used in the user interface. The current hack of > > overwriting it with "Oracle Corporation" hides the real vendor in the UI, > > so we shouldn't do that. > > > > The whole jvmfwk API uses the vendor as an identifier. We have to change > > identification. This could affect the public API for that module. > > > > The vendor is expected to match our list of vendors, to the point where > (if > > I understand correctly) jvmfwk searches for Java by first reading our > known > > Java vendors, and then searching for each one, so the search logic also > has > > to change. > > > > I'll have to understand the internals of that module in detail. > > > >
