Broken JDK link

DJ Lucas dj at
Sun May 11 09:56:55 PDT 2008

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> The issue is licensing, and the patches repo must hold the license if we 
>> are to keep the patches in the repo.  Because we are not dealing with a 
>> typical FOSS license, the patches have to have a readme file in the same 
>> directory (or include the readme in a 'prominent place' with our 
>> sources).  
> We have
> can't we use that as a 'prominent place'?
Anyplace works so long as the patches don't exist in a directory that 
does not contain the readme, so that if users browse to the license must be present.  If we 
point the download links directly there and not at &patches-root; then 
the patches will not be copied to$ver/, correct? 

It still seems to me that it's a lot of work to account for something 
that nobody *should* be using anyway. We should probably just get rid of 
it.  As Randy just suggested in his other message, it can be moved to 
the wiki and links to the patches be placed that point directly to the 
patches project.  Just update the warning (and make it a note) so that 
users see that we've not completely ignored the source build.  Randy 
already offered to do the book page, and yes, the changes should go into 
the svn book (remove source build).  I'd be happy to assist as well, I 
can do the wiki page, or you can if you prefer Randy.  Just let me know. 

I suggested that the instructions be removed from svn book as the build 
method for OpenJDK-{6,7} will not use those instructions anyway.  Soon 
enough we'll have an official version 7 (and a compatible version 6) 
under a 'GPL with classpath exception' license (same license scheme that 
we'd have with a full GCJ implementation) and these problems (licensing, 
updated source code, local sources, etc.) just disappear. 

-- DJ Lucas

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list