No subject

Fri Jun 11 15:52:39 PDT 2010

difficult it will be to make openJDK LSB compliant?


>>> On 6/7/2010 at 08:14 AM, in message <4C0CFECA.7020602 at>, =
Schweikert <rschweikert at> wrote:=20
> Hi,
> George's query about Java poked me to finally take some time and look at
> the LSB build of Java in OBS (openSUSE Build Service). As the Java
> source has move forward and the current project i slinked to the latest
> Java build the patches created via the GSoC (Google Summer of Code) no
> longer apply. Not really a big surprise.
> I took a look at the patches to see if I can figure out a few things
> here or there to make this work. As I was looking at the patches I
> realized why the previously discussed comment "patch set is not in shape
> to be accepted upstream" was made.
> While the patches has some good improvements it also creates build mode
> of openJDK to be LSB compliant. New header files are being created, LSB
> specific definitions, and lsb header file, etc. This does not reflect
> what I think we should have done and thus I am not really surprised that
> the patches would not be accepted upstream.
> The goal of the GSoC project was in my mind to make openJDK LSB
> compliant and NOT, add a mode in which I can build openJDK in an LSB
> compliant way. These are quite different goals and the GSoC produced a
> way in which one can build openJDK in an LSB compliant way. This leaves
> us with patches we most likely cannot push upstream.
> The "create a way to build openJDK LSB compliant" way is indicated by
> various #ifdef uses in the patches and a specific lsb directory. These
> are not necessary if the build is LSB native rather than a mode.
> Part of the work applies to making openJDK LSB compliant, but a good
> chunk of the work falls into the second category (LSB build mode of
> openJDK).
> IMHO moving forward in this state makes little sense and we need to
> figure out a better way to get where we want to be.
> Robert

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list