On 10/5/23 6:58 PM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
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
I've now created https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317634 and opened a PR
for it https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16066.
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13686#issuecomment-1749881662
Without commenting on the merits of the `jlink` work, I wonder if a
better solution for javadoc is to have a different source for the legal
files to be copied into any generated docs. Arguably, the set of legal
files for the javadoc tool may be different from the legal files for any
generated docs. Rather than copying any files from some module's legal/
directory, maybe we could/should copy the files from a javadoc
resources/ directory instead. This would put the effort to replicate
the legal files into the makefile rules for the javadoc module.
-- Jon
