From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.skidata.com (mail1.skidata.com [91.230.2.99]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FA373CC7 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:50:22 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmIGABI/MlasEApK/2dsb2JhbABehHgGuwOGCYYZAoF7AQEBAQEBgQtBEwGDYQEBBHgRCw0LCRYPCQMCAQIBDzYGDQYCAogXAxfBBw2EOwEBCCOGd4N4gQaCU4F7SReEFgWNG4koiy4Biw8XizWHUYMngUFxggmCLUGBBwEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: AmIGABI/MlasEApK/2dsb2JhbABehHgGuwOGCYYZAoF7AQEBAQEBgQtBEwGDYQEBBHgRCw0LCRYPCQMCAQIBDzYGDQYCAogXAxfBBw2EOwEBCCOGd4N4gQaCU4F7SReEFgWNG4koiy4Biw8XizWHUYMngUFxggmCLUGBBwEBAQ Message-ID: <56324006.8040905@skidata.com> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:49:26 +0100 From: Richard Leitner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <5631CDAD.7030703@skidata.com> <9E01DDA7-C832-4E17-B17A-25850D0B27B5@gmail.com> <563208F3.1040900@skidata.com> In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [172.16.60.30] Subject: Re: [meta-java][PATCH 4/4] openjdk-8: add recipes for openjdk-8 and openjre-8 X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:50:23 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/29/2015 01:24 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Richard Leitner > wrote: >> On 10/29/2015 12:24 PM, Jens Rehsack wrote: >>> >>>> Am 29.10.2015 um 11:46 schrieb Otavio Salvador : >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote: >>>>>> Am 29.10.2015 um 08:41 schrieb Richard Leitner : >>>>>> To cite Otavio: >>>>>> We could rename the patches directory for openjdk-7 and avoid the >>>>>> version number on it. This would make easier for upgrades and to see >>>>>> the diff between the patches. >>>>> >>>>> So git diff -M doesn't work for you? I don't understand the reasoning. >>>> >>>> It does but reusing the directory easy the upgrade and as the >>>> openjdk-8 is in maintenance it is expected that it does not change >>>> much in the patches. >>> >>> Partial. As I told you, I updated OpenJDK from 8u40 to 8u72 when I first >>> encountered massive crashes on the target device with zeroshark until >>> llvm guys told me, that legacy JIT for ARM was utterly broken and they >>> force people to MCJIT. >>> >>> Having both directories during the upgrade helped me massively to >>> avoid breaking patches by fixing against new upstream adoptions. >>> >>> Surely, this could be handled developer-side by keeping an foo.old >>> directory - but it smells the same smell ;) >>> >>> I don't fight against renaming the directory, I just argue, both >>> way have their own kind of smell. >>> >> >> I really understand both sides... But for me, due to the fact we want to >> support only one version of each OpenJDK release, the patch directory >> without version has "a better smell" ;-) >> >> I would also go one step further and omit the version from >> openjdk-7-release-*.inc. Then the version number is only included in the >> name of the openjdk-7_*.bb file. >> >> But I'm open to any discussion! So what do you think about it? > > I agree; and if we possible fix the indenting and reduce the > indirection (reducing the number .inc files, for example) I would > support :-D > Ok, i will prepare a patch for fixing the filenames in openjdk-7. What indentation should be chosen? Tabs? Spaces (how much)? Maybe I have also time to fix that in the recipes-core. best regards; Richard L