[Slackbuilds-users] possible submission

[Christoph Willing]

On 23/06/17 17:57, B Watson wrote:
> On 6/23/17, Sebastien BALLET <slacker6896 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Otherwise, there are zulu-openjdk7/8 slackbuilds to repackage the Azul's
>> Zulu build of OpenJDK 7/8.
>>
>> https://slackbuilds.org/repository/14.2/development/zulu-openjdk7/
>> https://slackbuilds.org/repository/14.2/development/zulu-openjdk8/
>> http://zulu.org/
> 
> Hm. I didn't know those were even there. So basically what I was asking
> about already exists (since June 8 of this year)... but only for x86_64.
> 
> I still might do a 32-bit-only openjdk-bin build. Or call it
> "openjdk-bootstrap", make it the bare minimum needed to build the real
> openjdk. If it's even possible to pare it down any, I mean.
>

I hope we don't go this way. I like the ability to build from source
code. Repackaging binaries from elsewhere has its place but I think we,
as a community, should retain the ability to build everything ourselves.

If we need some binary java package to bootstrap building of subsequent
versions, then let's have a binary that we made ourselves, rather than
one of more or less unknown origin. I mean, who are these zulu.org people?

Looking at:
    http://zulu.org/tcs/
I see that the entity behind zulu,.org is Azul Systems, Inc. and while
it's no crime to be incorporated, what would be any different using
binaries from Zulu compared with accepting binaries from Oracle? At
least Oracle is up front enough to use a .com domain name and don't
pretend to be some touchy feely community driven .org.

Also, I had some difficulty finding their source code or anything to do
with their build system, finally finding:
    https://github.com/zulu-openjdk/zulu-openjdk/issues/3
where it is explained that source code is only available on request.
That's not as "open" as I like things to be.

chris