On 01:07 Wed 11 May , Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Summary ==
> This is initial step to move JDKs to be more like other JDKs, to build
> proper transferable images, and to lower certification burden of each
> binary. Long storyshort, first step in:
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs
>
> This first step will move, one by one, individual JDKs in F37 to be
> built `--with-stdc++lib=static` and against in-tree (bundeld)
> libraries: `--with-zlib="bundled" --with-freetype="bundled"
> --with-libjpeg="bundled" --with-giflib="bundled"
> --withlibpng="bundled" --with-lcms="bundled"
> --with-harfbuzz="bundled" `
>
> We already made a heavy testing of the behavior, and user should not
> face negative experience. I'm not sure if this is
>
> == Owner ==
> * Name: [[User:jvanek| Jiri Vanek]]
> * Email: jvanek(a)redhat.com
Let me join the train of -1 votes. I consider this a step entirely in the
wrong direction. The JDK should be linked to system libraries wherever
possible just like our other packages. Language interpreters/JITs are not
exempt from that. In fact, I see very little value in providing JDK packages
at all if they are built that way.
I expect JDK users would disagree with you. JDKs from other vendors
(Amazon, Azul, Oracle, etc.) are built in exactly this way. We (and
likely other GNU/Linux distributions) are the exception here.
> == Detailed Description ==
> Please see
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs for
> whole picture
And this plan is entirely unacceptable. It is just plain not allowed in
Fedora to ship prebuilt binary blobs (even if they are built by Fedora
developers), packages are required to be built from source, and that
requirement is there for good reasons. There have so far been no exceptions
whatsoever to this rule (except temporarily for bootstrapping purposes,
conditional on replacing the prebuilt binary with a rebuilt bootstrapped
package before releasing it). I do not see any reason why Java should get an
exception there.
If passing the TCK is such an issue, then please just go back to shipping
the packages under the name IcedTea or some other name not trademarked by
Oracle. With Provides and Obsoletes in place, this will make very little
difference in practice for the end user.
It's not a trademark issue [0], but one of user confidence in what is
being provided. The "OpenJDK" name can be used as long as it's OpenJDK
code that is being built, and not, say, the OpenJDK libraries combined
with a non-OpenJDK virtual machine.
I think the alternative would be that we reduced testing in a similar way
e.g. only run the TCK on the latest released Fedora for each JDK.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[0]
https://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html
--
Andrew :)
Pronouns: he / him or they / them
Senior Free Java Software Engineer
OpenJDK Package Owner
Red Hat, Inc. (
http://www.redhat.com)
PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (
hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222