core(5) appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by 0mp on Jul 28 2020, 11:54 AM.

Details

Reviewers

sevan
imp

Group Reviewers

manpages

Commits

rS363772: core(5) appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX

Summary

core(5) appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX

https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/man51.pdf

Obtained from:	NetBSD

Found it here: https://freshbsd.org/commit/netbsd/src/C72SdP9c4uqCJgCB

https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/man51.pdf is a scan of the manual for the first edition of UNIX as explained here: https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/1stEdman.html

Diff Detail

Repository

rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion

Lint

Lint Not Applicable

Unit

Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

0mp created this revision.Jul 28 2020, 11:54 AM

Herald added a reviewer: manpages. · View Herald TranscriptJul 28 2020, 11:54 AM

0mp requested review of this revision.Jul 28 2020, 11:54 AM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B32604: Diff 75056.Jul 28 2020, 11:54 AM

0mp edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Jul 31 2020, 7:45 PM

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.Aug 2 2020, 4:59 PM

Closed by commit rS363772: core(5) appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX (authored by 0mp). · Explain Why

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

0mp added a commit: rS363772: core(5) appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX.

The matches the tuhs archive too...

Revision Contents
Changeset List

Path

Size

head/

share/

man/

man5/

core.5

4 lines

Diff 75275

View Options

head/share/man/man5/core.5

Context not available.

	JAVA="%%LOCALBASE%%/bin/java"	JAVA="%%LOCALBASE%%/bin/java"
	JARPATH="%%JAVALIBDIR%%"	JARPATH="%%JAVALIBDIR%%"
	export JAVA_VERSION="%%JAVA_VERSION%%"
	glewisUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions Note that this may cause a subtle change in behaviour if either the ports tree is not present on a system or if javavmwrapper is otherwise instructed to use it's own internal logic (e.g. if JAVAVM_FALLBACK_ONLY is set). > env JAVAVM_FALLBACK_ONLY=yes JAVA_VERSION=1.6+ /usr/local/bin/java -version openjdk version "12.0.2" 2019-07-16 > env JAVAVM_FALLBACK_ONLY=yes /usr/local/bin/java -version openjdk version "13.0.1" 2019-10-15 This will depend on what versions the user has installed. This is actually more of a bug in javavmwrapper which I'll look into (it doesn't understand JDK 13 yet). It also doesn't have a default version (e.g. 8) and uses the "newest" one if no version is supplied. If a version is supplied then it uses the newest version that it understands. An alternative to all these script changes would be to have bsd.java.mk always add JAVA_VERSION to SUB_LIST, using the version it ends up deciding on if none is set. glewis: Note that this may cause a subtle change in behaviour if either the ports tree is not present…
	jkimAuthorUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions AFAIK, the inconsistency with JAVAVM_FALLBACK_ONLY is intentional. Actually, the manual page says: However, this option, when used with scripts installed by a port, may result in Java VM selection inconsistent with that intended by the script author. jkim: AFAIK, the inconsistency with JAVAVM_FALLBACK_ONLY is intentional. Actually, the manual page…
	glewisUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions As the author of javavmwrapper, it is certainly the case that when using JAVAVM_FALLBACK_ONLY that you may get different behaviour from what you do when the ports tree is present. What is a bug is that the presence of "JAVA_VERSION=1.6+" in the two command lines above shouldn't make a difference. Whether it is present or not, the fallback logic should choose the same version. That is what I was pointing out. So by removing that line from the invocation, this change may affect what version is chosen in that situation, even though it shouldn't. The likelihood of this impacting people is quite low though, so I'm not overly concerned. I also have a fix I can commit after this change (I don't want to commit while this is in flight since it will conflict with changes here). glewis: As the author of javavmwrapper, it is certainly the case that when using JAVAVM_FALLBACK_ONLY…
	jkimAuthorUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions Understood. Yes, it looks like there's a bug in javavmwrapper. It should not show any difference with or without the ports tree as the PR167799 said. jkim: Understood. Yes, it looks like there's a bug in javavmwrapper. It should not show any…

	exec "${JAVA}" -jar "${JARPATH}/%%JARNAME%%" "$@"	exec "${JAVA}" -jar "${JARPATH}/%%JARNAME%%" "$@"
Context not available.

core(5) appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIXClosedPublicActions