On 17:20 Wed 11 May , Florian Weimer wrote: > * Daniel P. Berrangé: > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:37:31AM -0400, Omair Majid wrote: > >> AFAIK, even if you rebuild the exact same sources with the exact same > >> toolchain with the exact same compiler flags, you still can't claim TCK > >> certification status from one build carries over to the next. > > > > With such a strict interpretation, then I would have thought that > > any time a dependency got an update it would invalidate certification > > too, even right down to any glibc update, or even kernel update ? > > I think most TCK users do not control an entire operating system like > Fedora does. > > Is there an actual contractual requirement for Fedora to distribute > OpenJDK builds only after they have passed the TCK? That's just > impossible with the Fedora build system, and we would have to remove > OpenJDK from Fedora to comply. Or maybe there is something we can do to > with the OpenJDK vendor strings to escape TCK testing requirements. > That would still be unfortunate because some Java software looks at > these strings and alters its behavior, so everyone loses because of the > reduced test coverage, but it's probably better than shipping no OpenJDK > at all. > > If running the TCK is optional, then the TCK testing could be restricted > to a single Fedora release, plus testing of the RC of a new Fedora > release. Fedora couldn't claim TCK compliance, of course, but it does > not look like we currently do anyway: > > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java> > <https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=TCK> > > “TCK” isn't mentioned on docs.fedoraproject.org, either. > > Thanks, > Florian > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure No, there is no contractual requirement as far as I'm aware. Access to the TCK comes with certain provisions, but these are related to what about it can be made public (basically, you can only say a binary has passed, nothing more detailed) The impetus is more from other providers of JDK binaries. Thanks to its chequered history in FOSS distributions, there is a tendency for end users to download a JDK from a vendor rather than using what is available in their distribution. If those binaries have passed the TCK, and the ones in Fedora have not, that is another reason for someone to download an external JDK. Over the decade and a half since OpenJDK started, there has been a lot of effort from those in the Red Hat Java team and others to push people back towards using a FOSS Java stack. Weakening our test regime would be a reason for people to go back to using other binaries. The aim of this set of proposals (which can only really be considered as a whole) is to move to a situation where the JDK is built from source once on Fedora and then that binary is tested and deployed on multiple versions of Fedora, which sounds similar to what you propose by only testing on the one release. It's not something I'm completely keen on myself. We've spent a lot of time over the years making it possible to use system dependencies (at the start, this was all local patches). However, with the current burden of JDKs and platforms on our team (which is only set to further increase over time), we need to consider whether everything we are doing is necessary and worthwhile. Using system libraries means our JDKs also get their own unique bugs as well as features. It's not a simple benefit as it may first appear. I'm sure this is the case for other projects too. Likewise, with security fixes; it may mean we pick up a security fix early via the system library being updated, but it may also mean we are later than other JDKs because we are waiting on system library updates as well. These proposals do ask for exceptional treatment for the JDKs on Fedora, but it's an attempt to move away from what is an exceptional way of building the JDK that differs from other vendors and puts the Fedora JDK at a disadvantage in many situations. If there is significant opposition to this, I believe we would have to look at reducing builds and testing on Fedora in other ways. Thanks, -- 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
