Andrew Hughes wrote:
> On 01:07 Wed 11 May , Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>> 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.
I *am* a JDK user. I use the JDK and JRE for work. I have been using the
Fedora-provided OpenJDK RPMs all this time, and I have never encountered any
issue caused by how they are built.
In fact, quite the opposite: Our servers' Let's Encrypt certificates just
worked out of the box with the Fedora-provided OpenJDK (due to the use of
the system root CA list) whereas Windows JDK builds had required workarounds
for quite a while until Oracle finally fixed their CA list.
In my experience, the packages are 100% compatible with other OpenJDK
builds, including the proprietary Oracle JDK, and the fact that they pass
the TCK actually more or less proves that they are.
Use of system libraries is exactly what I expect from a distribution package
of OpenJDK.
> 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.
And that difference is the entire point of building distribution packages of
OpenJDK at all. I see very little value in a "Fedora" OpenJDK build over
just using Adoptium Temurin binaries if they are built the exact same way.
Well, there is the ease of installing and updating due to being packaged in
an RPM, but an RPM repository could also be provided by Red Hat through
Adoptium.
I expect from a package in the Fedora repository to follow Fedora guidelines
and best practices, which includes using system libraries wherever possible,
and being built on the Fedora release for which it is shipped (or for the
initial version in a new Fedora release, on a Rawhide no older than the
latest mass rebuild).
> 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.
I think reducing TCK runs would be an acceptable compromise. After all, that
is where the bottleneck lies.
Maybe you could also run the TCK asynchronously *after* the security update
went out (or while it is queued), and try to fix in a later update any
regressions that unexpectedly show up?
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
