[oe] [meta-java][PATCH 4/4] openjdk-8: add recipes for openjdk-8 and openjre-8

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Richard Leitner
<richard.leitner at skidata.com> wrote:
> On 10/29/2015 01:24 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Richard Leitner
>> <richard.leitner at skidata.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2015 12:24 PM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 29.10.2015 um 11:46 schrieb Otavio Salvador <otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br>:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehsack at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 29.10.2015 um 08:41 schrieb Richard Leitner <richard.leitner at skidata.com>:
>>>>>>> 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.

I would prefer 4 spaces.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750