10 RFR (XS) 8193764: Cannot set COMPANY_NAME when configuring a build

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

10 RFR (XS) 8193764: Cannot set COMPANY_NAME when configuring a build

mark.reinhold
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193764
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8193764/

You can set COMPANY_NAME in make/autoconf/version-numbers, but you can't
set it when configuring a build, so it's impossible to change the value
of IMPLEMENTOR in the $JAVA_HOME/release file without patching the
source code.

This patch simply adds the obvious --with-vendor-name option to the
configure script.

(Motivation: I'm trying to arrange for IMPLEMENTOR to be "Oracle
 Corporation" in builds produced by Oracle, but this option may prove
 useful to other implementors.)

- Mark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 RFR (XS) 8193764: Cannot set COMPANY_NAME when configuring a build

Martin Buchholz-3
Mark, thanks for implementing my little feature request.  Looks good to me.

Aside: we only support running configure under bash, but as a result the
configure script is now a strange mixture of bashisms and 1980-isms.

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:41 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193764
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8193764/
>
> You can set COMPANY_NAME in make/autoconf/version-numbers, but you can't
> set it when configuring a build, so it's impossible to change the value
> of IMPLEMENTOR in the $JAVA_HOME/release file without patching the
> source code.
>
> This patch simply adds the obvious --with-vendor-name option to the
> configure script.
>
> (Motivation: I'm trying to arrange for IMPLEMENTOR to be "Oracle
>  Corporation" in builds produced by Oracle, but this option may prove
>  useful to other implementors.)
>
> - Mark
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 RFR (XS) 8193764: Cannot set COMPANY_NAME when configuring a build

mark.reinhold
2017/12/18 15:36:03 -0800, Martin Buchholz <[hidden email]>:
> Mark, thanks for implementing my little feature request.  Looks good to me.

I didn't know you'd requested this -- is there an existing issue?

- Mark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 RFR (XS) 8193764: Cannot set COMPANY_NAME when configuring a build

Tim Bell
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 RFR (XS) 8193764: Cannot set COMPANY_NAME when configuring a build

Martin Buchholz-3
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:50 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2017/12/18 15:36:03 -0800, Martin Buchholz <[hidden email]>:
> > Mark, thanks for implementing my little feature request.  Looks good to
> me.
>
> I didn't know you'd requested this -- is there an existing issue?
>

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189761
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 RFR (XS) 8193764: Cannot set COMPANY_NAME when configuring a build

Erik Joelsson
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold
Looks good.

/Erik


On 2017-12-18 23:41, [hidden email] wrote:

> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193764
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8193764/
>
> You can set COMPANY_NAME in make/autoconf/version-numbers, but you can't
> set it when configuring a build, so it's impossible to change the value
> of IMPLEMENTOR in the $JAVA_HOME/release file without patching the
> source code.
>
> This patch simply adds the obvious --with-vendor-name option to the
> configure script.
>
> (Motivation: I'm trying to arrange for IMPLEMENTOR to be "Oracle
>   Corporation" in builds produced by Oracle, but this option may prove
>   useful to other implementors.)
>
> - Mark

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 10 RFR (XS) 8193764: Cannot set COMPANY_NAME when configuring a build

mark.reinhold
In reply to this post by Martin Buchholz-3
2017/12/18 20:40:19 -0800, Martin Buchholz <[hidden email]>:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:50 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> I didn't know you'd requested this -- is there an existing issue?
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189761

Thanks.  I cross-linked that with 8193764, which addresses part of your
request, and added a comment to summarize what remains to be done.

- Mark