On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 05:07:34 GMT, KIRIYAMA Takuya <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I modified the location from which javadoc copies some legal files to the >> generated documentation. If --legal-notices　option is set to default or >> nothing is specified,, GPLv2 Legal Documents are copied from >> legal/java.base/ directory, such as LICENSE, ADDITIONAL_LICENSE_INFO and >> ASSEMBLY_EXCEPTION. >> >> Would you please review this fix? > > KIRIYAMA Takuya has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes > brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains six additional > commits since the last revision: > > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin' into 8306980 > - 8306980: Generated docs should contain correct GPLv2 Legal Documents > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin' into 8306980 > - 8306980: Generated docs should contain correct GPLv2 Legal Documents > - 8306980: Generated docs should contain correct GPLv2 Legal Documents > - 8306980: Generated docs should contain correct GPLv2 Legal Documents Hello Mandy, > One idea to fix this is to extend jlink --dedup-legal-notices to accept an > option that specify the module names that always wants to keep a copy of the > legal files. That sounds reasonable. So `jdk.javadoc` through of build system could then be marked as requiring a copy of these legal notice files when the JDK image is being built. Do you think that the option should be applicable only on systems where symbolic link isn't applicable or should the `LegalNoticeFilePlugin` use that option to just create copies of the legal files for a chosen module, irrespective of which platform it is for? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13686#issuecomment-1747849994
