I have come across a couple of online html to markdown converters which
might help - I hope it makes the process easier:
http://domchristie.github.io/to-markdown/
http://markable.in/editor/
This one has multiple format to multiple format conversion facility:
http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/try/
On 2015-02-06 18:18, Martijn Verburg wrote:
Hi all,
So I started digging into this (just the HTML path to start with) and
the diff got pretty ridiculous. So I'm going to split the work into
several parts:
1.) Fix HTML warnings and convert HTML styling to CSS styling (using
internal styleshe
Hi all,
So I started digging into this (just the HTML path to start with) and the
diff got pretty ridiculous. So I'm going to split the work into several
parts:
1.) Fix HTML warnings and convert HTML styling to CSS styling (using
internal stylesheet)
2.) Cosmetic changes to improve readability (
* Magnus Ihse Bursie [2015-02-03 08:48]:
> In a somewhat related area: I've been toying with the idea of rewriting the
> build-readme in markdown instead, and just generate the html file. Updating
> proper, consistent html formatting for a document like this is quite
> painful, and we never seem t
Hi Magnus,
Thanks, in that case I'll submit a patch and see what people think, if it's
too big a change then I can always redo in pieces. I'm personally OK with
HTML, pretty used to making it play nice, but have noting against Markdown
either.
Cheers,
Martijn
On 3 February 2015 at 13:50, Magnus
On 2015-02-01 11:16, Martijn Verburg wrote:
Hi all,
I'm sitting at FOSDEM and was reminded that we hadn't yet made the effort
to integrate the "How to build OpenJDK" material we've built up over on
adoptopendk.java.net (the incubator site for Adoption Group activities) as
well as tidying up some
Hi all,
I'm sitting at FOSDEM and was reminded that we hadn't yet made the effort
to integrate the "How to build OpenJDK" material we've built up over on
adoptopendk.java.net (the incubator site for Adoption Group activities) as
well as tidying up some typos and HTML compatibility warnings in the
Hi, Erik.
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8041593
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8041593/webrev.root.01/
Great!
Thanks,
iris
Hi Erik:
Here is a minor patch to README-builds.html to update references to
jdk8 to jdk9 and fix the part about boot jdk since we now require jdk8.
I realize there is probably a lot more that needs to be fixed in this
file, but would like to leave that for another time.
Bug: https
Here is a minor patch to README-builds.html to update references to jdk8
to jdk9 and fix the part about boot jdk since we now require jdk8.
I realize there is probably a lot more that needs to be fixed in this
file, but would like to leave that for another time.
Bug: https
Changeset: f8405a0fa69c
Author:erikj
Date: 2013-08-26 13:43 +0200
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/build/rev/f8405a0fa69c
8023216: Feedback on README-builds.html
Reviewed-by: anthony, robilad, tbell
! README-builds.html
Looks good to me as well.
Tim
On 08/21/13 05:55 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Nice, thanks.
On 8/21/13 2:53 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Thanks, updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8023216/webrev.root.02/
/Erik
On 2013-08-19 16:38, Dalibor Topic wrote:
On 8/19/13 2:43 PM, Erik Joelss
Nice, thanks.
On 8/21/13 2:53 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Thanks, updated webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8023216/webrev.root.02/
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2013-08-19 16:38, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> On 8/19/13 2:43 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>> And again, here we go:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk
Thanks, updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8023216/webrev.root.02/
/Erik
On 2013-08-19 16:38, Dalibor Topic wrote:
On 8/19/13 2:43 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
And again, here we go:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8023216/webrev.root.01/
A few typos:
javascript -> JavaScript
Dan,
It's nice to see other other people being "picky".
-- Jon
On 08/05/2013 04:18 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
I'm building for the first time under the new infrastructure (late to the
party, I know). I appreciate the comprehensive readme page. Here's a list of
minor points of feedback:
"The set
On 8/19/13 2:43 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> And again, here we go:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8023216/webrev.root.01/
A few typos:
javascript -> JavaScript
sourses -> sources
cheers,
dalibor topic
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2013-08-19 11:05, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback!
Hi Erik,
The fix looks fine to me.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 08/19/13 16:43, Erik Joelsson wrote:
And again, here we go:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8023216/webrev.root.01/
/Erik
On 2013-08-19 11:05, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Thanks for the feedback!
I took most of it and made into a c
And again, here we go:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8023216/webrev.root.01/
/Erik
On 2013-08-19 11:05, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Thanks for the feedback!
I took most of it and made into a change. Also removed some obsolete
parts that I stumbled over.
Warn is supposed to be quiet, but at le
Thanks for the feedback!
I took most of it and made into a change. Also removed some obsolete
parts that I stumbled over.
Warn is supposed to be quiet, but at least hotspot is still being quite
noisy.
/Erik
On 2013-08-06 01:18, Dan Smith wrote:
I'm building for the first time under the ne
I'm building for the first time under the new infrastructure (late to the
party, I know). I appreciate the comprehensive readme page. Here's a list of
minor points of feedback:
"The set of repositories and what they contain": need to add nashorn
"warn — Default and very quiet": I presume this
On Jun 17, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi Kelly! You still read this stuff here? :-)
I read anything that looks entertaining from entertaining people. ;^)
-kto
On 6/19/13 1:01 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Currently, configure checks that the found boot jdk is 7 or 8. Do we really
want to actively prevent using 8 all together? I could agree to printing a big
warning in the summary at the end of configure to discourage it, but I do
believe it necessary to hav
On 6/19/2013 4:01 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Now ... circular dependencies ... urk ... I *knew* there was something
that would make this complicated. Well, maybe these will need to be
refactored away somehow. Or maybe some kind of GenStubs technique can
be used to deal with the circularity.
We
I'm not sure how big a warning needs to be to make people aware of it.
Is it possible to create another configure option like
--yes-i-do-want-to-use-n that you must add to set boot jdk to 8?
--Max
On 6/19/2013 5:23 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 19/06/2013 09:01, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2013-
On 19/06/2013 09:01, Erik Joelsson wrote:
:
My preferred solution would be to fold in the repos that aren't
upstream projects into jdk and just have them compile with the rest
there. I much like the idea of reducing the number of repos. If that
isn't possible, we can just add those source dir
On 19/06/2013 09:01, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2013-06-19 03:10, Stuart Marks wrote:
--
I have half a mind to look at the Configure changes myself in my spare
time (ha!), but I have no spare time, and I don't have the expertise
in this area anyway. So anyone is welcome to pick this up. In
princ
On 2013-06-19 03:10, Stuart Marks wrote:
--
I have half a mind to look at the Configure changes myself in my spare
time (ha!), but I have no spare time, and I don't have the expertise
in this area anyway. So anyone is welcome to pick this up. In
principle it should be fairly simple, and I t
on the repositories. I think it's also worth discussing whether
the "compilation unit" is the code in a single repository or whether the code
in multiple repositories could be compiled together. The other extreme is where
we get to the point where individual modules can be compiled on their ow
r issues handled separately.
Guys, thanks for the review and comments. I've just pushed a change to
README-builds.html that adopts a modified version of David's suggestion, the
essence of which is changing "Do not use..." to "JDK 8 developers should not
use"
s'marks
On 18/06/2013 08:42, Stuart Marks wrote:
:
4) Could jaxp, jaxws, and corba be built with the current JDK, not the
boot JDK? Sure, probably. I spoke with Jon G on this topic the other
day and we didn't come up with any really good reasons why they need
to be built with the boot JDK. Historical
On 06/18/2013 10:02 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Stuart,
> I would like people to review the README change as well. Thanks.
I don't think we should simply say
"Do not use a build of JDK 8 as the boot JDK for building JDK 8."
as that doesn't explain what the issue is. If I'm building the JDK fo
Hi Erik,
On 18/06/2013 6:06 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2013-06-18 08:57, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 6/18/13 8:28 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 18/06/2013 4:02 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the ge
Hi Stuart,
> I would like people to review the README change as well. Thanks.
I don't think we should simply say
"Do not use a build of JDK 8 as the boot JDK for building JDK 8."
as that doesn't explain what the issue is. If I'm building the JDK for
my own use I can use JDK8. So how about:
On 2013-06-18 08:57, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 6/18/13 8:28 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 18/06/2013 4:02 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the general recommendation for most
people should be to alw
Hi folks,
Looks like I generated a bit of discussion here. Let's try to tease apart some
of the issues.
1) I think we need a better articulation of the rule about the boot JDK being
N-1, thus my proposed change to the README. I don't mean to ever prohibit
anybody from ever trying to build JD
On 6/18/13 8:28 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 18/06/2013 4:02 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the general recommendation for most
people should be to always use N-1. I think Stuart is just searchi
On 18/06/2013 4:02 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the general recommendation for most
people should be to always use N-1. I think Stuart is just searching
for ways to make people aware that usi
On 6/17/2013 6:22 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 06/17/2013 05:21 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 6/17/13 4:02 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Rule #1 Nobody reads the README
Rule #2 When things go wrong, blame the README
I of course have no objection to the change, however, I'm not
convinced it will
he
The only problem with using N is that you don't know whether you have
broken building with N-1. Therefore the general recommendation for most
people should be to always use N-1. I think Stuart is just searching
for ways to make people aware that using N-1 is "the right thing to do".
-- Jon
I thought the only rule was "must be buildable by N-1", not that you
must not try to use N!
Can the problem preventing a build using JDK8 as the boot JDK not be
corrected? I'm assuming it is one of the more unusual parts of the build
where we mess with bootclasspath etc?
David
On 18/06/2013
On 06/17/2013 05:21 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 6/17/13 4:02 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Rule #1 Nobody reads the README
Rule #2 When things go wrong, blame the README
I of course have no objection to the change, however, I'm not
convinced it will
help much the next time someone runs into this. :^
On 6/17/13 4:02 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Rule #1 Nobody reads the README
Rule #2 When things go wrong, blame the README
I of course have no objection to the change, however, I'm not convinced it will
help much the next time someone runs into this. :^(
Hi Kelly! You still read this stuff here? :
> developer was using a JDK 8 build as his boot JDK. Turns out the rule to use
> JDK N-1 as the boot JDK for JDK N isn't specified clearly in
> README-builds.html. Here's a diff to strengthen the wording in that file.
>
> Also, is it OK if I push this
Hi all,
We had a problem in TL the other day [1] [2] that wasn't caught because a
developer was using a JDK 8 build as his boot JDK. Turns out the rule to use
JDK N-1 as the boot JDK for JDK N isn't specified clearly in
README-builds.html. Here's a diff to strengthen the wordi
I noticed the same and filed JDK-8010258 yesterday. Tim Bell thinks
it's probably just an oversight.
Brad
On 3/19/2013 8:57 AM, David Chase wrote:
I was just browsing through, to be sure I was going to set the knobs right for
some performance testing, and noticed no mention of the reposito
I was just browsing through, to be sure I was going to set the knobs right for
some performance testing, and noticed no mention of the repository I had to
clone last night.
David
- Original Message -
> On 03/15/2013 03:55 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> > In file included from
> > /builddir/build/BUILD/java-1.8.0-openjdk/jdk8/build/jdk8.build/jdk/gensrc_x11wrappers/sizer.64.c:11:0:
> > /builddir/build/BUILD/java-1.8.0-openjdk/jdk8/jdk/src/solaris/native/sun/awt/awt_p.h:51:
On 03/15/2013 03:55 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> In file included from
> /builddir/build/BUILD/java-1.8.0-openjdk/jdk8/build/jdk8.build/jdk/gensrc_x11wrappers/sizer.64.c:11:0:
> /builddir/build/BUILD/java-1.8.0-openjdk/jdk8/jdk/src/solaris/native/sun/awt/awt_p.h:51:36:
> fatal error: X11/extensions/Xre
- Original Message -
> 2013/3/18 Andrew Hughes :
>
> >
> > Depends how many distros you intend to support.
>
> Well, I guess that if somebody doesn't use one between
> rhel/fedora/suse/ubuntu/mint/debian than most likely will figure out
> the exact commands anyway, I think those are still
2013/3/18 Andrew Hughes :
>
> Depends how many distros you intend to support.
Well, I guess that if somebody doesn't use one between
rhel/fedora/suse/ubuntu/mint/debian than most likely will figure out
the exact commands anyway, I think those are still good suggestions to
keep around.
Cheers,
Ma
- Original Message -
> 2013/3/15 Andrew Hughes :
> >> Might want to update configure to check for these libs on linux.
> >>
> >
> > Well that won't work everywhere:
> >
> > $ apt-get install libx11-dev libxext-dev libxt-dev libxrender-dev
> > bash: apt-get: command not found
> >
> > so th
- Original Message -
> On 03/15/2013 02:05 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >> Might want to update configure to check for these libs on linux.
> >>
> >
> > Well that won't work everywhere:
> >
> > $ apt-get install libx11-dev libxext-dev libxt-dev libxrender-dev
> > bash: apt-get: command no
2013/3/15 Andrew Hughes :
>> Might want to update configure to check for these libs on linux.
>>
>
> Well that won't work everywhere:
>
> $ apt-get install libx11-dev libxext-dev libxt-dev libxrender-dev
> bash: apt-get: command not found
>
> so this advice has limited usage anyway.
Actually the c
On 03/15/2013 02:05 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>> Might want to update configure to check for these libs on linux.
>>
>
> Well that won't work everywhere:
>
> $ apt-get install libx11-dev libxext-dev libxt-dev libxrender-dev
> bash: apt-get: command not found
>
> so this advice has limited usage a
se do not 'reply all', send concerns or issues to just the
> > build-dev or build-infra-dev aliases.
> >
> > The very latest README-builds.html file is:
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/raw-file/tip/README-builds.html
> >
> > This documen
oncerns or issues to just the build-dev or
build-infra-dev aliases.
The very latest README-builds.html file is:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/raw-file/tip/README-builds.html
This documents the new build makefiles only.
As with all documents of this type, it will always be a work in progress.
-kto
an RFE (JDK-8007129) to add a configure option for locating JTREG which
would allow omission of the JT_HOME definition.
HTH,
Mike
On Mar 1 2013, at 09:18 , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> Please do not 'reply all', send concerns or issues to just the build-dev or
> build-infra-dev al
Please do not 'reply all', send concerns or issues to just the build-dev or
build-infra-dev aliases.
The very latest README-builds.html file is:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/raw-file/tip/README-builds.html
This documents the new build makefiles only.
As with all documen
On 06/18/12 10:25, Andrew Haley wrote:
The README-builds.html instructions say...
Slow Builds:
...
Creating the javadocs can be very slow, if you are running
javadoc, consider skipping that step.
But there is no information I can find about how to skip that step: I
think it&#
On 18/06/2012 18:25, Andrew Haley wrote:
The README-builds.html instructions say...
Slow Builds:
...
Creating the javadocs can be very slow, if you are running
javadoc, consider skipping that step.
But there is no information I can find about how to skip that step: I
think
The README-builds.html instructions say...
Slow Builds:
...
Creating the javadocs can be very slow, if you are running
javadoc, consider skipping that step.
But there is no information I can find about how to skip that step: I
think it's NO_DOCS=true.
Andrew.
Changeset: 2f06b15e2439
Author:ewendeli
Date: 2012-05-03 14:17 +0200
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/build/rev/2f06b15e2439
7154130: Add Mac OS X Instructions to README-builds.html
Reviewed-by: ohair
Contributed-by: edvard.wende...@oracle.com
! README-builds.html
ew_bug.do?bug_id=7154130
>
> Thanks,
> Edvard
>
> [1]
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/build/raw-file/e01201e727da/README-builds.html
> [2] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/macosx-port/
> [3] https://wikis.oracle.com/display/OpenJDK/Mac+OS+X+Port+Prerequisites
> [4] http://www.apple.com/macosx/
>
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 5:13 AM, Ray Kiddy wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/25/12 3:02 PM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on some updates in the README-bui
> On 4/25/12 3:02 PM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm working on some updates in the README-builds.html [1]. The first step
>>> is to add the Mac OS X platform. I have gathered the requirements from the
>>> Mac OS X port wiki [2][3].
On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On 4/25/12 3:02 PM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm working on some updates in the README-builds.html [1]. The first step is
>> to add the Mac OS X platform. I have gathered the requirements from the Ma
On 4/25/12 3:02 PM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on some updates in the README-builds.html [1]. The first step is
> to add the Mac OS X platform. I have gathered the requirements from the Mac
> OS X port wiki [2][3]. It seems like Apple has dropped the &quo
On Apr 25, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on some updates in the README-builds.html [1]. The first step is
> to add the Mac OS X platform. I have gathered the requirements from the Mac
> OS X port wiki [2][3]. It seems like Apple has dropp
Hi,
I'm working on some updates in the README-builds.html [1]. The first step is to
add the Mac OS X platform. I have gathered the requirements from the Mac OS X
port wiki [2][3]. It seems like Apple has dropped the "Mac" part of "Mac OS X"
and now only call t
Changeset: dada8003df87
Author:dholmes
Date: 2011-03-28 00:50 -0400
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/rev/dada8003df87
7030131: Update README-builds.html to cover changes introduced by SE-Embedded
integration
Reviewed-by: ohair
! README-builds.html
Looks fine to me.
-kto
On Mar 27, 2011, at 6:13 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/7030131/webrev/
>
> Thanks,
> David
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/7030131/webrev/
Thanks,
David
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> Excellent. I approve.
thank you very much, Kelly - pushed to build-gate.
cheers,
dalibor topic
>
> -kto
>
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Bringing the docs from OpenJDK 6 and OpenJDK 7 a bit more in line,
>> I offer you the following webrev for review, fixing
>> 6872
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> I think either java-openjdk or java-1.6.0-openjdk should be used
> consistently throughout. The former is probably most future proof, as
> it should still work when OpenJDK7 is released around March.
>
> Otherwise, looks good. Thanks for the update,
Thank you for the
Excellent. I approve.
-kto
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Hi,
Bringing the docs from OpenJDK 6 and OpenJDK 7 a bit more in line,
I offer you the following webrev for review, fixing
6872735: Further update build readme for new platforms
6641691: Bring build readme's up-to-date
with one potential com
2009/9/23 Dalibor Topic :
> Hi,
>
> Bringing the docs from OpenJDK 6 and OpenJDK 7 a bit more in line,
> I offer you the following webrev for review, fixing
>
> 6872735: Further update build readme for new platforms
> 6641691: Bring build readme's up-to-date
>
> with one potential commit:
>
> http:
Hi,
Bringing the docs from OpenJDK 6 and OpenJDK 7 a bit more in line,
I offer you the following webrev for review, fixing
6872735: Further update build readme for new platforms
6641691: Bring build readme's up-to-date
with one potential commit:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robilad/6872735.7/w
Changeset: 1d9112b073d7
Author:ohair
Date: 2008-09-17 13:30 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/rev/1d9112b073d7
6724787: OpenJDK README-builds.html suggested changes
6746440: Add Fedora 9 & CentOS 5.2 instructions to OpenJDK Build README
Reviewed-by: weijun, x
Cygwin for the POSIX environment, you should be using
MinGW.
[aka MSYS make]
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Attached is a diff and an updated OpenJDK README-builds.html file.
If anyone has the time to review the changes I would appreciate it.
The bugs fixed are:
6704966: OpenJDK README needs addi
cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2006-07/msg8.html>. If
>> you are using a POSIX-like "OS" (i.e. Cygwin), you should be using POSIX
>> paths. That's not an inconvenience, that's called writing a bad makefile. If
>> you aren't using Cygwin for the POSI
O'Hair wrote:
Attached is a diff and an updated OpenJDK README-builds.html file.
If anyone has the time to review the changes I would appreciate it.
The bugs fixed are:
6704966: OpenJDK README needs additional info on how to build freetype
6704968: OpenJDK Build README is missing ant req
81 matches
Mail list logo
