On 2017-04-04 10:04, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2017-04-03 23:50, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Apr 3, 2017, at 2:39 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2017/4/3 13:35:30 -0700, si...@cjnash.com:
On 03/04/2017 21:15, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2017/4/3 11:41:03 -0700, mandy.ch...@oracle.com:
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8175819/webrev.00/
...
This shows the old and new value of OS_NAME/OS_ARCH properties
in the `release` file:
JDK 8 JDK 9
----- -----
OS_NAME Linux linux
SunOS solaris
Darwin osx
Windows windows
OS_ARCH i386,x86 x86
i586,amd64,x86_64 x64
sparcv9 sparcv9
arm arm32
aarch64 arm64
I am not sure why we would change to osx for Mac when the Mac
developers
have recently dropped the Mac OS X terminology and changed it to
macOS.
Agreed -- we should change OS_NAME from "Darwin" to "macos”.
OK. Should the bundle names be updated to reflect this change?
In any case, it is a separate issue.
JDK 8 JDK 9
----- -----
OS_NAME Linux linux
SunOS solaris
Darwin macos
Windows windows
OS_ARCH i386,x86 x86
i586,amd64,x86_64 amd64
sparcv9 sparcv9
arm arm32
aarch64 arm64
Having though this over real hard, I'd realized I need to make a plea
for sanity and consistency. I thought I should lay low in this
discussion, but I can't. Choosing "amd64" as the name for the 64-bit x86
platform is really, really unfortunate and a step backwards in our
effort to standardize the name of this platform.
We have continuously worked on trying to get "x64" the all-around
standard name for this platform. Since we dropped the path "lib/amd64",
I believe more or less the only place left that still has "amd64" is
os.arch, which is not easy to change due to legacy reasons (although I'd
really like to see that changed too, considering that it already is
different on different operating systems...)
I'd really hate for us to suddenly start introducing changes that once
again divert us away. :-( It's hard enough as it is with all this
converting of names. Let us not add yet another odd place!
/Magnus
If we are making changes to the original proposal from JDK-8175819,
then I just want to add my few cents:
Why change from the well-established "aarch64" to the virtually unused
"arm64"? As far as I know, using the name "arm64" for the aarch64
platform is something that has only been done in the (recently opened)
closed Oracle port. This change, however, proposes to change the value
in the release file even for the open aarch64 port, which has always
been known by that name.
/Magnus
Mandy
