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 #16066 does not fully solve the problem as it only works on JDK image that ensures javadoc's legal files are copied. These legal files are part of the javadoc output like other resource files such as `*.js`. Like what Jon suggests, javadoc can/should copy these files from its resources directory like all other files such as `*.js` copied to the output directory and javadoc no longer relies on the jlink output. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13686#issuecomment-1770489146
