On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 04:36:13 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> This entire PR feels like a non-issue.
>>
>> I agree that the UX of the --with-* flags are not optimal, but I also doubt
>> it worth putting much time and effort into fixing. Going through each and
>> every --with-flag to determine the
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 14:02:35 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> I'm of the opinion that options which cannot have empty values, and will
>> fall back to default ones if no explicit one is provided, would generate an
>> error if --without-* is passed, while others that _can_ have empty values
>>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 02:48:45 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> ... and this goes for all the changes in the PR.
>
> I'm of the opinion that options which cannot have empty values, and will fall
> back to default ones if no explicit one is provided, would generate an error
> if --without-* is passed,
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 04:15:51 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> Passing --without-x makes no sense at all IMHO.
Even so, I'd argue that it should be handled properly and show what really went
wrong, rather than throwing, for instance, "no is not a valid version string"
(In the case of
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 08:07:30 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> Some of the --without options are not properly handled and will crash when
>> processed (For example, --without-version-string), in other cases the
>> --without-* option will actually silently produce incorrect results instead
>> of
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 19:54:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> I think this, even more, makes it clear that `--without-vendor-url` can´t
>> possible be meant to be interpreted as "use https://openjdk.java.net/;.
>>
>> Basically, I think what I'm arguing for is that we can fold this check into
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 19:53:34 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> make/autoconf/jdk-version.m4 line 129:
>>
>>> 127: AC_MSG_ERROR([--with-vendor-url must have a value])
>>> 128: elif test "x$with_vendor_url" = xno; then
>>> 129: AC_MSG_WARN([--without-vendor-url is the same as not passing
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 08:07:30 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> Some of the --without options are not properly handled and will crash when
>> processed (For example, --without-version-string), in other cases the
>> --without-* option will actually silently produce incorrect results instead
>> of
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 13:57:42 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Handle remaining options and change critical options to error when
>> --without is passed
>
>
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 08:07:30 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> Some of the --without options are not properly handled and will crash when
>> processed (For example, --without-version-string), in other cases the
>> --without-* option will actually silently produce incorrect results instead
>> of
> Some of the --without options are not properly handled and will crash when
> processed (For example, --without-version-string), in other cases the
> --without-* option will actually silently produce incorrect results instead
> of actually doing what --without-* implies (For example,
11 matches
Mail list logo
