From mark at klomp.org Mon Dec 1 09:02:38 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:02:38 +0100 Subject: Free Java Meeting at Fosdem - Brussels, Belgium on 7 and 8 February 2009 In-Reply-To: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1228122158.22459.3.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi all, On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:53 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Since we always have so much fun meeting each other at Fosdem we have > again applied for a Developer Room at Fosdem early next year. This year > Fosdem will be taking place in Brussels, Belgium on Saturday 7 and > Sunday 8 February 2009. FOSDEM '09 is a free and non-commercial event > organized by the community, for the community. Its goal is to provide > Free and Open Source developers a place to meet. http://fosdem.org/2009/ > > We should know early next week if a developer room is available. If so > we will start collecting ideas for activities. If there isn't a > developer room available we will figure out something else. There were a lot of submissions this year, so it took the Fosdem organisation some time to go through them all. But I am happy to announce: The Free Java devroom request for FOSDEM 2009 (7+8 February) has been accepted. Details will follow (deadline for schedule, information we need for the schedule, room capacity, etc...). Welcome aboard, and thanks for your participation in FOSDEM 2009 :) > Hope to see you there, you friendly ad hoc Fosdem meeting committee, > > Dalibor Topic, > Andrew John Hughes, > Andrew Haley, > David Herron > and Mark Wielaard From Onno.Kluyt at Sun.COM Mon Dec 1 14:01:28 2008 From: Onno.Kluyt at Sun.COM (Onno Kluyt) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:28 -0500 Subject: Free Java Meeting at Fosdem - Brussels, Belgium on 7 and 8 February 2009 In-Reply-To: <1228122158.22459.3.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1228122158.22459.3.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <72584A51-3964-4432-ADFC-451BA45A1D7E@sun.com> Excellent! Great work, Mark. Onno. On Dec 1, 2008, at 4:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:53 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> Since we always have so much fun meeting each other at Fosdem we have >> again applied for a Developer Room at Fosdem early next year. This >> year >> Fosdem will be taking place in Brussels, Belgium on Saturday 7 and >> Sunday 8 February 2009. FOSDEM '09 is a free and non-commercial event >> organized by the community, for the community. Its goal is to provide >> Free and Open Source developers a place to meet. http://fosdem.org/2009/ >> >> We should know early next week if a developer room is available. If >> so >> we will start collecting ideas for activities. If there isn't a >> developer room available we will figure out something else. > > There were a lot of submissions this year, so it took the Fosdem > organisation some time to go through them all. But I am happy to > announce: > > The Free Java devroom request for FOSDEM 2009 (7+8 February) > has > been accepted. > > Details will follow (deadline for schedule, information we need > for the schedule, room capacity, etc...). > > Welcome aboard, and thanks for your participation in FOSDEM > 2009 :) > >> Hope to see you there, you friendly ad hoc Fosdem meeting committee, >> >> Dalibor Topic, >> Andrew John Hughes, >> Andrew Haley, >> David Herron >> and Mark Wielaard > From neugens at limasoftware.net Mon Dec 1 15:21:19 2008 From: neugens at limasoftware.net (Mario Torre) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:21:19 +0100 Subject: Free Java Meeting at Fosdem - Brussels, Belgium on 7 and 8 February 2009 In-Reply-To: <010d01c953c1$096690c0$0202a8c0@sempron> References: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1228122158.22459.3.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <72584A51-3964-4432-ADFC-451BA45A1D7E@sun.com> <010d01c953c1$096690c0$0202a8c0@sempron> Message-ID: <1228144879.3288.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno lun, 01/12/2008 alle 14.28 +0000, sales at abcmodelsport.co.uk ha scritto: > Cant wait!!! Hi "sales" :) Yeah, me to! Cheers Mario From robilad at kaffe.org Mon Dec 1 16:46:02 2008 From: robilad at kaffe.org (Dalibor Topic) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:46:02 +0100 Subject: Free Java Meeting at Fosdem - Brussels, Belgium on 7 and 8 February 2009 In-Reply-To: <1228122158.22459.3.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1228122158.22459.3.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <493414CA.6070201@kaffe.org> Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi all, > > There were a lot of submissions this year, so it took the Fosdem > organisation some time to go through them all. But I am happy to > announce: > > The Free Java devroom request for FOSDEM 2009 (7+8 February) has > been accepted. > > Details will follow (deadline for schedule, information we need > for the schedule, room capacity, etc...). > > Welcome aboard, and thanks for your participation in FOSDEM > 2009 :) > >> Hope to see you there, you friendly ad hoc Fosdem meeting committee, >> Barebone ad-hoc Wiki page for planning: http://wiki.debian.org/Java/DevJam/2009/Fosdem More updates on talk slots, etc. as we go, but please do sign up already if you know that you are coming - that'll make the Saturday/Sunday dinner event planning simpler. cheers, dalibor topic From mark at klomp.org Thu Dec 4 16:57:07 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:57:07 +0100 Subject: Java Compatible Message-ID: <1228409827.11874.38.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi, The FAQ says: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#k17 Q: If I test my OpenJDK-based implementation under the new compatibility testing program and license, and I pass the TCK, can I call my implementation "Java Compatible"? A: Yes. But you'll first need to accept a trademark license before you can use this Sun brand and trademark subject to the terms of the trademark license. The trademark license will be free of charge for use on implementations that qualify for testing under the OpenJDK Community TCK License. Since as of late April, 2008, it is not yet possible to build a compatible implementation based on the OpenJDK 6 code base, this trademark license is not yet available. We expect to make draft copies available to the community soon, with the final. The entry is a bit out of date since it has been half a year now since there have been OpenJDK/IcedTea derived packages (at least on Fedora x86/x86_64) that pass the TCK and are technically Java Compatible. But as far as I know draft copies of this trademark license have never been published. Has it made final yet? Thanks, Mark From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Dec 5 05:27:57 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:27:57 -0800 Subject: JDK 7 build 41 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4938BBDD.5030106@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/541bdc5ad32f The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 41 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b41.html -Xiomara From martinrb at google.com Fri Dec 5 07:20:02 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:20:02 -0800 Subject: JDK 7 build 41 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4938BBDD.5030106@sun.com> References: <4938BBDD.5030106@sun.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10812042320i5eafdaa3h725b50a49033c62d@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 21:27, Xiomara Jayasena wrote: > Summary of changes: > http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b41.html The hotspot bug categories have a very large set of bug fixes, and many of those are ancient, which suggests a serious bug in the program that generates these summaries. Martin From mihamina at lab.vectoris.fr Fri Dec 5 08:34:43 2008 From: mihamina at lab.vectoris.fr (Mihamina Rakotomandimby) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:34:43 +0300 Subject: discovering Message-ID: <4938E7A3.3070603@lab.vectoris.fr> Hi, I come back to Java for a specific project. I last used it at school (University), with the Sun's Java and we used to install it with the "binary installer" (it was 1.4 in those times). Now, at work, we use Ubuntus and we want to install them only with the package manager. Ubuntu has openJDK packaged. All that things to say: I dont really know the history of openJDK. And I have a question: What is the compatibility of, for example http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/networking/sockets/clientServer.html with openJDK? From Christopher.Hegarty at Sun.COM Fri Dec 5 10:50:39 2008 From: Christopher.Hegarty at Sun.COM (Christopher Hegarty - Sun Microsystems Ireland) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:50:39 +0000 Subject: discovering In-Reply-To: <4938E7A3.3070603@lab.vectoris.fr> References: <4938E7A3.3070603@lab.vectoris.fr> Message-ID: <4939077F.5010506@sun.com> Hi Mihamina, The example code from the tutorial should run fine with OpenJDK. It is a simple client and server program exchanging Knock Knock jokes over legacy java.net.Sockets. Are you experiencing a specific problem with this example code? Are you running a firewall? I notice that the server code is binding to specific port. You may need to allow access to accept connections on that port. If you are having specific problems in the networking area then we should continue this thread on net-dev at openjdk.java.net. -Chris. Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: > Hi, > I come back to Java for a specific project. > > I last used it at school (University), with the Sun's Java and we used > to install it with the "binary installer" (it was 1.4 in those times). > > Now, at work, we use Ubuntus and we want to install them only with the > package manager. > > Ubuntu has openJDK packaged. > > All that things to say: I dont really know the history of openJDK. > > And I have a question: > What is the compatibility of, for example > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/networking/sockets/clientServer.html > with openJDK? > From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Dec 5 15:45:03 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:45:03 -0800 Subject: JDK 7 build 41 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812042320i5eafdaa3h725b50a49033c62d@mail.gmail.com> References: <4938BBDD.5030106@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812042320i5eafdaa3h725b50a49033c62d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49394C7F.30801@sun.com> Thansk Martin. I am awared of the problem. We'll get this fix soon. -Xiomara Martin Buchholz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 21:27, Xiomara Jayasena wrote: > >> Summary of changes: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b41.html >> > > The hotspot bug categories have a very large set of bug fixes, > and many of those are ancient, which suggests a serious bug > in the program that generates these summaries. > > Martin > From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Dec 5 16:58:17 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:58:17 -0800 Subject: JDK 7 build 41 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <49394C7F.30801@sun.com> References: <4938BBDD.5030106@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812042320i5eafdaa3h725b50a49033c62d@mail.gmail.com> <49394C7F.30801@sun.com> Message-ID: <49395DA9.8040608@Sun.COM> Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b41.html The problem has been fixed. -Xiomara On 12/05/08 07:45, Xiomara Jayasena wrote: > > Thansk Martin. I am awared of the problem. > > We'll get this fix soon. > > -Xiomara > > > Martin Buchholz wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 21:27, Xiomara Jayasena wrote: >> >>> Summary of changes: >>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b41.html >>> >> >> The hotspot bug categories have a very large set of bug fixes, >> and many of those are ancient, which suggests a serious bug >> in the program that generates these summaries. >> >> Martin >> > From mihamina at lab.vectoris.fr Sun Dec 7 06:23:43 2008 From: mihamina at lab.vectoris.fr (Mihamina Rakotomandimby) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:23:43 +0300 Subject: discovering In-Reply-To: <4939077F.5010506@sun.com> References: <4938E7A3.3070603@lab.vectoris.fr> <4939077F.5010506@sun.com> Message-ID: <493B6BEF.1040304@lab.vectoris.fr> Christopher Hegarty - Sun Microsystems Ireland wrote: > Are you experiencing a specific problem with this example code? No, No. I am just trying to follow some basic documentation about Networking in Java. I would like first to ensure I am using compatible docs and tools. That's all. I will have to write some netwaork based applications and your suggestion to join net-dev is fine, I will. Thanks. From Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM Wed Dec 10 01:49:39 2008 From: Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM (Jonathan Gibbons) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:49:39 -0800 Subject: CFV: Project sponsorship: Small language changes In-Reply-To: <493D9B42.6050902@sun.com> References: <493D9B42.6050902@sun.com> Message-ID: <493F2033.70207@sun.com> The vote is already almost unanimous, with the following having all voted in favor: Alex, Maurizio, Joe, Neal, Jonathan, John and Kumar Therefore I am calling the result early, and am pleased to announce the Compiler Group will sponsor this Project. -- Jon Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > > Question: Should the Compiler Group sponsor the proposed > "Small language changes for JDK 7" Project [1]? > > Please cast your vote by replying, publicly, to this message with > either > > Vote: yes > > or > > Vote: no > > as the first line of the message body. > > You may, at your option, indicate the reason for your decision on > subsequent lines. > > Votes must be cast in the open; votes sent as private replies will > not be counted. > > The sponsorship decision will be made by a simple majority vote of > the Group's Members. Votes are due by midnight UTC next Monday, > 15 December. As an optimization, if an absolute majority of the > Group's Members votes one way or the other prior to that time then > the decision may be rendered earlier. > > Only Members of the Compiler' Group are eligible to vote on this > decision. The current Members are: > > Alex Buckley > Maurizio Cimadamore > Iris Clark > Joe Darcy > Neal Gafter > Jonathan Gibbons > John Rose > Kumar Srinivasan > > Once a decision has been made the votes will be summarized and > reported to this list and also to discuss at openjdk.java.net > . > > -- Jon > > [1] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2008-December/000065.html From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Thu Dec 11 23:38:12 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:38:12 -0800 Subject: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 in build 42 Message-ID: <4941A464.5000502@Sun.COM> Hi, The JDK 7 RE builds will move to Fedora 9 starting in build 42. Thanks to the team for all their work on this and special thanks to Kelly! -Xiomara -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:31:37 -0700 From: Xiomara Jayasena To: discuss at openjdk.java.net Hi, The official Release Engineering builds for JDK 7 will be moving from the following OSs: *32 bit builds* ========== *From: *RH AS 2.1 to Fedora 9 *64 bit builds* ========== *From: *SUSE 8 to: Fedora 9 All required Makefile changes are in place, there are still other items that are still being investigated for this OS upgrade to happen but wanted to inform of the changes that are on the way. *When:* It is expected that this change will happen by build 42. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks, -Xiomara From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Dec 19 06:14:21 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:14:21 -0800 Subject: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html -Xiomara From martinrb at google.com Fri Dec 19 08:52:47 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:52:47 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> build 42 has come, and the JDK binaries no longer work on my system (32-bit Ubuntu dapper). java -version gives an instant crash with "floating point exception". Not very friendly. I have always liked the fact that in the past Sun's JDK engineers put in great effort to ensure that JDK binaries work on a large variety of systems, generally by being built on some old unloved machine in the closet. I believe using Fedora 9 for official binaries is excessively aggressive. Like the JDK itself, operating systems (like Ubuntu "Long Term Support") tend to have about a 5-year support lifespan. Fedora 9 is just too young. I suggest using a build machine that, like Ubuntu dapper, has a glibc 2.3, which was the first release with NPTL. More specifically, I recommend glibc 2.3.6. Or more generally, try to support popular platforms for at least 5 years of life. Martin On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 20:31, Xiomara Jayasena wrote: > > Hi, > > The official Release Engineering builds for JDK 7 will be moving from the > following OSs: > > *32 bit builds* > ========== > *From: *RH AS 2.1 to Fedora 9 > > *64 bit builds* > ========== > *From: *SUSE 8 to: Fedora 9 > > All required Makefile changes are in place, there are still other items > that are still being investigated for this OS upgrade to happen but wanted > to inform of the changes that are on the way. > *When:* It is expected that this change will happen by build 42. > > Please let me know if there are any questions. > > Thanks, > -Xiomara > > From Weijun.Wang at Sun.COM Fri Dec 19 09:15:50 2008 From: Weijun.Wang at Sun.COM (Weijun Wang) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:15:50 +0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494B6646.2040309@sun.com> +10^10^10 Martin Buchholz wrote: > build 42 has come, and the JDK binaries no longer work on my > system (32-bit Ubuntu dapper). java -version gives > an instant crash with "floating point exception". > Not very friendly. > > I have always liked the fact that in the past Sun's JDK engineers > put in great effort to ensure that JDK binaries work on > a large variety of systems, generally by being built on > some old unloved machine in the closet. > > I believe using Fedora 9 for official binaries is > excessively aggressive. > Like the JDK itself, operating systems (like Ubuntu > "Long Term Support") tend to have about a > 5-year support lifespan. Fedora 9 is just too young. > > I suggest using a build machine that, like Ubuntu dapper, > has a glibc 2.3, which was the first release with NPTL. > More specifically, I recommend glibc 2.3.6. > > Or more generally, try to support popular platforms > for at least 5 years of life. > > Martin > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 20:31, Xiomara Jayasena > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The official Release Engineering builds for JDK 7 will be moving from the >> following OSs: >> >> *32 bit builds* >> ========== >> *From: *RH AS 2.1 to Fedora 9 >> >> *64 bit builds* >> ========== >> *From: *SUSE 8 to: Fedora 9 >> >> All required Makefile changes are in place, there are still other items >> that are still being investigated for this OS upgrade to happen but wanted >> to inform of the changes that are on the way. >> *When:* It is expected that this change will happen by build 42. >> >> Please let me know if there are any questions. >> >> Thanks, >> -Xiomara >> >> From mark at klomp.org Fri Dec 19 09:57:10 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:57:10 +0100 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi Martin, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 00:52 -0800, Martin Buchholz wrote: > build 42 has come, and the JDK binaries no longer work on my > system (32-bit Ubuntu dapper). java -version gives > an instant crash with "floating point exception". > Not very friendly. > > I have always liked the fact that in the past Sun's JDK engineers > put in great effort to ensure that JDK binaries work on > a large variety of systems, generally by being built on > some old unloved machine in the closet. > > I believe using Fedora 9 for official binaries is > excessively aggressive. Are there any "official" GPL binaries for OpenJDK these days? If there are it would be interesting to use these for testing against distro produced binaries. But how would be tag these builds as "official"? Thanks, Mark From aph at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 11:39:00 2008 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:39:00 +0000 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> Martin Buchholz wrote: > build 42 has come, and the JDK binaries no longer work on my > system (32-bit Ubuntu dapper). java -version gives > an instant crash with "floating point exception". > Not very friendly. > > I have always liked the fact that in the past Sun's JDK engineers > put in great effort to ensure that JDK binaries work on > a large variety of systems, generally by being built on > some old unloved machine in the closet. > > I believe using Fedora 9 for official binaries is > excessively aggressive. Does this failure to run on Ubuntu dapper have anything to do with Fedora 9? Andrew. From martinrb at google.com Fri Dec 19 17:32:07 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:32:07 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:57, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Are there any "official" GPL binaries for OpenJDK these days? No, but I encourage Sun and encourage others to encourage Sun to provide those, at least for Linux where there is a community that cares. > If there > are it would be interesting to use these for testing against distro > produced binaries. That is the primary purpose for me - comparative testing. (For the same reason, "proprietary" JDK builds are also valuable for open source developers) > But how would be tag these builds as "official"? I'm not sure I understand the question. Here "official" means there's been some release engineering love and an expectation of a minimal level of quality. Martin From martinrb at google.com Fri Dec 19 17:41:08 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:41:08 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 03:39, Andrew Haley wrote: > Does this failure to run on Ubuntu dapper have anything to do with > Fedora 9? Since it appears to have been caused by building on Fedora 9, the answer is very likely "yes". In particular, Fedora 9 very likely has a glibc version > 2.3, and apps built on such a system tend to have linker dependencies on symbols introduced in glibc 2.4, causing libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found load-time errors. I also suspect compiler runtime incompatibilities. (I've never used Fedora, and I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with Fedora 9, aside from being too new.) Martin From mark at klomp.org Fri Dec 19 17:53:09 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:53:09 +0100 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1229709189.3344.110.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi Martin, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 09:32 -0800, Martin Buchholz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:57, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Are there any "official" GPL binaries for OpenJDK these days? > > No, but I encourage Sun and encourage others to encourage Sun > to provide those, at least for Linux where there is a community that cares. To be honest I think it will be easier to get the distros to do this for us. They are much better at it and it saves you from endless discussion of which architectures, platforms, compilers, libraries, configure/build options, etc need to be supported. Still, if they were around I would indeed take a look and compare stuff a bit with my local builds if I had any strange test failures for example. Fedora 9 binaries would be fine for me, I am on Fedora 10 already :) Although my servers are a mix of Debian stable and CentOS 5. > > But how would be tag these builds as "official"? > > I'm not sure I understand the question. > Here "official" means there's been some release engineering love > and an expectation of a minimal level of quality. Sorry, typo in my question. s/be/we/. But that answer does indeed start to answer my question. It would need a certain level of support from the community. How much love would be needed? Just setting up an autobuilder? Or running all jtreg tests (what about the manual ones?). How and where to store them, for how long? What build platform and architecture to use? etc. I'll try and make some time during the vacation to get a build going on Debian stable (that should certainly be old enough :) But getting things bootstrapping on such old distros is pretty challenging. We have a builder machine in the classpath.org domain, but I am not sure it has enough capacity at the moment. Cheers, Mark From aph at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 18:27:27 2008 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:27:27 +0000 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> Martin Buchholz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 03:39, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Does this failure to run on Ubuntu dapper have anything to do with >> Fedora 9? > > Since it appears to have been caused by building on Fedora 9, > the answer is very likely "yes". > > In particular, Fedora 9 very likely has a glibc version > 2.3, > and apps built on such a system tend to have linker > dependencies on symbols introduced in glibc 2.4, > causing > libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found > load-time errors. > > I also suspect compiler runtime incompatibilities. > > (I've never used Fedora, and I'm not suggesting there's anything > wrong with Fedora 9, aside from being too new.) I guess it depends on what the builds are for. OpenJDK is the future, and builds of OpenJDK are forward-looking. Yea, even OpenJDK 6. At some point you have to admit that you *need* to build on something more recent. As an example of the cost of building on old boxes, OpenJDK contains prototypes for epoll(7) that are incorrect for some arches. These prototypes exist because epoll didn't come into existence before Kernel 2.6(ish), and OpenJDK was being built on an old box, so the prototypes were copied from the kernel headers on (I think) an x86 box. This bug causes bizarre and hard to debug behaviour on non-x86 arches. At some point you have to get rid of cruft like this. If not now, when? Andrew. From martinrb at google.com Fri Dec 19 18:37:40 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:37:40 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1229709189.3344.110.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> <1229709189.3344.110.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10812191037g5eb19ee1v78306a17516828c9@mail.gmail.com> Hi Mark, On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:53, Mark Wielaard wrote: > To be honest I think it will be easier to get the distros to do this for > us. They are much better at it and it saves you from endless discussion > of which architectures, platforms, compilers, libraries, configure/build > options, etc need to be supported. There's the old debate over the "one true binary" vs. a set of binaries optimized for every particular platform. Each has their advantages. > Still, if they were around I would indeed take a look and compare stuff > a bit with my local builds if I had any strange test failures for > example. > > Fedora 9 binaries would be fine for me, I am on Fedora 10 already :) > Although my servers are a mix of Debian stable and CentOS 5. > >> > But how would be tag these builds as "official"? >> >> I'm not sure I understand the question. >> Here "official" means there's been some release engineering love >> and an expectation of a minimal level of quality. Let me expand on that a little. Every "build" coming from Sun has already had a significant amount of testing applied to it. For comparative testing, I would like to try the very same binaries that Sun must have already created. Martin From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Fri Dec 19 18:53:20 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:53:20 +0000 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812191053h1861c60dk57d84859ef077879@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/19 Martin Buchholz : > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:57, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> Are there any "official" GPL binaries for OpenJDK these days? > > No, but I encourage Sun and encourage others to encourage Sun > to provide those, at least for Linux where there is a community that cares. > No, it's still not even possible to build Free binaries with raw OpenJDK as the sound and SNMP plugs are required. IcedTea7 fixes this of course and provides Gervill. For OpenJDK6, it's definitely possible and should be being done to properly promote the spirit of OpenJDK. If you're going to use a proprietary plug with OpenJDK6, you may as well just use 6u10 or whatever anyway. >> If there >> are it would be interesting to use these for testing against distro >> produced binaries. > > That is the primary purpose for me - comparative testing. > (For the same reason, "proprietary" JDK builds are also valuable > for open source developers) > Hmmm I wonder why -- is this for some real need or because they don't realise what is being shipped in their distro these days? >> But how would be tag these builds as "official"? > > I'm not sure I understand the question. > Here "official" means there's been some release engineering love > and an expectation of a minimal level of quality. > Sounds like a distro build IMO. > Martin > Thanks, -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From martinrb at google.com Fri Dec 19 18:55:49 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:55:49 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:27, Andrew Haley wrote: > As an example of the cost of building on old boxes, OpenJDK contains > prototypes for epoll(7) that are incorrect for some arches. These We are changing the subject slightly from portability of binaries to portability of sources. > prototypes exist because epoll didn't come into existence before > Kernel 2.6(ish), and OpenJDK was being built on an old box, so the > prototypes were copied from the kernel headers on (I think) an x86 > box. This bug causes bizarre and hard to debug behaviour on non-x86 > arches. > > At some point you have to get rid of cruft like this. If not now, > when? Obviously opinions differ on how long to support older platforms. "Kids these days..." think 2 years is old. When I was maintaining an open source project, I tried to maintain a portability horizon of at least 10 years. Seriously. I would like people to be able to build my software on that old Irix machine they picked up at a garage sale. For problems like changing prototypes, we have configure. Sure the following example is ugly cruft, but we can wait one more decade before nuking it. dnl If `getpgrp' takes no argument (the POSIX.1 version), define dnl `GETPGRP_VOID'. Otherwise, it is the BSD version, which takes a dnl process ID as an argument. AC_CHECK_FUNCS(getpgrp) AC_FUNC_GETPGRP Martin From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Fri Dec 19 19:39:26 2008 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:39:26 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> These are not official product binaries but early access binary snapshots, you can't expect these binaries to be perfect by any means. They are also not OpenJDK7 builds but JDK7 builds. It was decided that we needed to update our JDK7 Linux build systems, so we had to do something to move out of the Dark Ages. The Linux systems we have been using were setup for jdk1.4.2, and used through jdk6. They were 2.4 kernel based systems. To minimize our packaging effort an rpm based system made the most sense, and Fedora9 seemed like the right choice at the time. This could change, we can build on a variety of systems, but jumping from ship to ship probably won't help matters without understanding why things don't work. We knew this was an experiment and we ran the risk of some Linux systems not working, for a multitude of reasons. And we also know that we cannot possible make everyone happy in whatever we pick. So what we need to do is figure out if there is a way to build on Fedora9 that allows the product to work better on other systems, or if we need to change to something other than Fedora9. Constructive suggestions are welcome. -kto Martin Buchholz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:27, Andrew Haley wrote: >> As an example of the cost of building on old boxes, OpenJDK contains >> prototypes for epoll(7) that are incorrect for some arches. These > > We are changing the subject slightly from portability of binaries > to portability of sources. > >> prototypes exist because epoll didn't come into existence before >> Kernel 2.6(ish), and OpenJDK was being built on an old box, so the >> prototypes were copied from the kernel headers on (I think) an x86 >> box. This bug causes bizarre and hard to debug behaviour on non-x86 >> arches. >> >> At some point you have to get rid of cruft like this. If not now, >> when? > > Obviously opinions differ on how long to support older platforms. > > "Kids these days..." think 2 years is old. > > When I was maintaining an open source project, > I tried to maintain a portability horizon of at least 10 years. > Seriously. I would like people to be able to build my > software on that old Irix machine they picked up at a > garage sale. > > For problems like changing prototypes, we have configure. > > Sure the following example is ugly cruft, > but we can wait one more decade before nuking it. > > dnl If `getpgrp' takes no argument (the POSIX.1 version), define > dnl `GETPGRP_VOID'. Otherwise, it is the BSD version, which takes a > dnl process ID as an argument. > AC_CHECK_FUNCS(getpgrp) > AC_FUNC_GETPGRP > > Martin From mlists at juma.me.uk Fri Dec 19 19:39:40 2008 From: mlists at juma.me.uk (Ismael Juma) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:39:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0812191053h1861c60dk57d84859ef077879@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Andrew John Hughes writes: > Sounds like a distro build IMO. There are two issues here, trust and frequency. Some people like to get builds from Sun because they trust it more than their distro while others trust the distro more. But even if we disregard that, there's still the issue of frequency, until all distros provide builds with a decent amount of testing and release engineering every couple of weeks, there's still a place for Sun builds. Ismael From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Fri Dec 19 19:46:44 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:46:44 +0000 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0812191053h1861c60dk57d84859ef077879@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812191146y79077cd8y4a64dfa9940e5dd3@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/19 Ismael Juma : > Andrew John Hughes writes: >> Sounds like a distro build IMO. > > There are two issues here, trust and frequency. Some people like to get builds > from Sun because they trust it more than their distro while others trust the > distro more. But even if we disregard that, there's still the issue of > frequency, until all distros provide builds with a decent amount of testing and > release engineering every couple of weeks, there's still a place for Sun builds. > > Ismael > > > Wow -- those folks must really want bleeding-edge... ;) -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From mlists at juma.me.uk Fri Dec 19 19:50:36 2008 From: mlists at juma.me.uk (Ismael Juma) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0812191053h1861c60dk57d84859ef077879@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0812191146y79077cd8y4a64dfa9940e5dd3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Andrew John Hughes writes: > Wow -- those folks must really want bleeding-edge... ;) Always! :) Ismael From aph at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 19:52:20 2008 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:52:20 +0000 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494BFB74.9050601@redhat.com> Martin Buchholz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:27, Andrew Haley wrote: >> As an example of the cost of building on old boxes, OpenJDK contains >> prototypes for epoll(7) that are incorrect for some arches. These > > We are changing the subject slightly from portability of binaries > to portability of sources. > >> prototypes exist because epoll didn't come into existence before >> Kernel 2.6(ish), and OpenJDK was being built on an old box, so the >> prototypes were copied from the kernel headers on (I think) an x86 >> box. This bug causes bizarre and hard to debug behaviour on non-x86 >> arches. >> >> At some point you have to get rid of cruft like this. If not now, >> when? > > Obviously opinions differ on how long to support older platforms. > > "Kids these days..." think 2 years is old. > > When I was maintaining an open source project, > I tried to maintain a portability horizon of at least 10 years. > Seriously. I would like people to be able to build my > software on that old Irix machine they picked up at a > garage sale. Well, we have to distinguish between what you like and what is best for the project as a whole! There's a nice note by Dijkstra called "On the fact that the Atlantic Ocean has two sides" where he ruminates about the Buxton Index: "A very useful measure is ?called after its inventor? the "Buxton Index". John N. Buxton discovered that the most important one-dimensional scale along which persons are institutions to be compared, can be placed is the length of the period of time in the future for which a person or institution plans. This period, measured in years, gives the Buxton Index. "The great significance of the Buxton Index is not its depth, but its objectivity. The point is that when people with drastically different Buxton Indices have to cooperate while unaware of the concept of the Buxton Index, they tend to make moral accusations against each other. The man with the shorter Buxton Index accuses the other of neglect of duty, the man with the larger one accuses the other of shortsightedness. The notion of the Buxton Index takes the moral flavour away and enables people to discuss such differences among themselves dispassionately. There is nothing wrong with having different Buxton Indices! It takes many people to make a world. There is clearly no moral value attached to either a long or a short Buxton Index." I am aware that we are here talking about time projected into the past, not the future, but I think the situation is very similar. You might think that I am very aggressive with obsoleting old versions, while I might think you are hanging onto dead softwtare for no good reason. > For problems like changing prototypes, we have configure. > > Sure the following example is ugly cruft, > but we can wait one more decade before nuking it. We can, but should we? :-) Andrew. From mark at klomp.org Fri Dec 19 20:11:38 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:11:38 +0100 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812191037g5eb19ee1v78306a17516828c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <1229680630.3344.46.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1ccfd1c10812190932l4c9c30e9od878c87c21b70976@mail.gmail.com> <1229709189.3344.110.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1ccfd1c10812191037g5eb19ee1v78306a17516828c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1229717498.3626.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi Martin, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:37 -0800, Martin Buchholz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:53, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Still, if they were around I would indeed take a look and compare stuff > > a bit with my local builds if I had any strange test failures for > > example. > > > > Fedora 9 binaries would be fine for me, I am on Fedora 10 already :) > > Although my servers are a mix of Debian stable and CentOS 5. > > > >> > But how would be tag these builds as "official"? > >> > >> I'm not sure I understand the question. > >> Here "official" means there's been some release engineering love > >> and an expectation of a minimal level of quality. > > Let me expand on that a little. > Every "build" coming from Sun has already had > a significant amount of testing applied to it. > For comparative testing, I would like to try the very same binaries > that Sun must have already created. Sure. But you need something that is completely automated and completely reproducible by the rest of the community. For example in icedtea we integrated all the tests in such a way that a simple make && make check runs them. Producing binary artifacts only makes sense really if you can do it methodically, otherwise you risk publishing things that depend on some individual's setup. That also means having enough capacity to do it on an ongoing basis. I'll see if we can finally expand builder.classpath.org to provide something like this over the next weeks, or that we would need to throw more hardware at it (which I think we will need seeing that we are already using the servers mostly at their capacity and having a build-bot for openjdk/icedtea will be pushing it a bit I am afraid). Another issue is that we aren't currently at zero-fail (ignoring the non-automated tests). It would be nice make this a requirement. Cheers, Mark From mark at klomp.org Fri Dec 19 21:01:51 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:01:51 +0100 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> Message-ID: <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi Kelly, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 11:39 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > These are not official product binaries but early access binary > snapshots, you can't expect these binaries to be perfect by any > means. They are also not OpenJDK7 builds but JDK7 builds. What is the difference between these kinds of builds? Would it be hard to expand these snapshots to include OpenJDK? If you already happen to have an automated build setup around could you share it so others can also use it? Thanks, Mark From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Fri Dec 19 21:07:08 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:07:08 +0000 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812191307s18d3f04m4d4c672cd5d3adad@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/19 Mark Wielaard : > Hi Kelly, > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 11:39 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> These are not official product binaries but early access binary >> snapshots, you can't expect these binaries to be perfect by any >> means. They are also not OpenJDK7 builds but JDK7 builds. > > What is the difference between these kinds of builds? Would it be hard > to expand these snapshots to include OpenJDK? If you already happen to > have an automated build setup around could you share it so others can > also use it? > > Thanks, > > Mark > > Well presumably it means it still has all the old proprietary cruft which was ejected from OpenJDK about a year ago... -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From David.Herron at Sun.COM Fri Dec 19 21:46:05 2008 From: David.Herron at Sun.COM (David Herron @ Sun) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:46:05 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0812191307s18d3f04m4d4c672cd5d3adad@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0812191307s18d3f04m4d4c672cd5d3adad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494C161D.6000100@sun.com> Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2008/12/19 Mark Wielaard : > >> Hi Kelly, >> >> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 11:39 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> >>> These are not official product binaries but early access binary >>> snapshots, you can't expect these binaries to be perfect by any >>> means. They are also not OpenJDK7 builds but JDK7 builds. >>> >> What is the difference between these kinds of builds? Would it be hard >> to expand these snapshots to include OpenJDK? If you already happen to >> have an automated build setup around could you share it so others can >> also use it? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mark >> > Well presumably it means it still has all the old proprietary cruft > which was ejected from OpenJDK about a year ago... > That's essentially correct. Further when we say OpenJDK7 gets a lot of testing, the testing occurs on JDK7 binary bundles. We don't explicitly test OpenJDK7 but rely on the extreme similarity of the two to assure quality of OpenJDK7. - David Herron From mark at klomp.org Fri Dec 19 21:57:13 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:57:13 +0100 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <494C161D.6000100@sun.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0812191307s18d3f04m4d4c672cd5d3adad@mail.gmail.com> <494C161D.6000100@sun.com> Message-ID: <1229723833.3626.19.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi David, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:46 -0800, David Herron @ Sun wrote: > Further when we say OpenJDK7 gets a lot of testing, the testing occurs > on JDK7 binary bundles. We don't explicitly test OpenJDK7 but rely on > the extreme similarity of the two to assure quality of OpenJDK7. So what would it take to extend this to OpenJDK proper? And why don't you directly test and build binaries for OpenJDK? Could you share your test setup with the rest of the community so we can do more coordinated support and testing? Thanks, Mark From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Fri Dec 19 22:03:21 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:03:21 +0000 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1229723833.3626.19.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0812191307s18d3f04m4d4c672cd5d3adad@mail.gmail.com> <494C161D.6000100@sun.com> <1229723833.3626.19.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812191403x27a2f585ufad346858f99b0c2@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/19 Mark Wielaard : > Hi David, > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:46 -0800, David Herron @ Sun wrote: >> Further when we say OpenJDK7 gets a lot of testing, the testing occurs >> on JDK7 binary bundles. We don't explicitly test OpenJDK7 but rely on >> the extreme similarity of the two to assure quality of OpenJDK7. > > So what would it take to extend this to OpenJDK proper? And why don't > you directly test and build binaries for OpenJDK? > > Could you share your test setup with the rest of the community so we can > do more coordinated support and testing? > > Thanks, > > Mark > > +1 -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Fri Dec 19 22:21:49 2008 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:21:49 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> The JDK7 early access binary snapshot builds are built from the OpenJDK7 sources, plus additional files and repositories we either cannot or haven't opened up yet (for various reasons). This build process has been created over the years around the Sun JDK product releases, the official build process takes many hours and involves things like virus scans etc. Not sure it's worth exposing, seems low priority to me anyway. Other than the freetype font logic (and maybe the sound code that is coming in at some point), there is little in the OpenJDK7 sources NOT built by the formal Sun JDK7 builds. To guarantee that a OpenJDK7 build only contained OpenJDK7 we would have to do a completely separate build. Justifying this is difficult when the standard open source procedure is to effectively roll-yer-own, not use any built bits from Sun. -kto Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 11:39 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> These are not official product binaries but early access binary >> snapshots, you can't expect these binaries to be perfect by any >> means. They are also not OpenJDK7 builds but JDK7 builds. > > What is the difference between these kinds of builds? Would it be hard > to expand these snapshots to include OpenJDK? If you already happen to > have an automated build setup around could you share it so others can > also use it? > > Thanks, > > Mark > From mark at klomp.org Fri Dec 19 22:56:34 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:56:34 +0100 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> Message-ID: <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi Kelly, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:21 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > The JDK7 early access binary snapshot builds are built from the > OpenJDK7 sources, plus additional files and repositories we either > cannot or haven't opened up yet (for various reasons). Do you have a list of these additional files and repositories? Is there anything for which there still isn't a free replacement available? > This build process has been created over the years around the Sun > JDK product releases, the official build process takes many hours > and involves things like virus scans etc. > Not sure it's worth exposing, seems low priority to me anyway. Yeah, it probably depends on the etc. But build systems have a tendency to get entangled with all kinds of local setups and installation issues. Having a standardized shared build system that people can copy and setup for their own particular environment does have its advantages though. It helps the community feel in control of their own niches. > To guarantee that a OpenJDK7 build only contained OpenJDK7 > we would have to do a completely separate build. > Justifying this is difficult when the standard open source > procedure is to effectively roll-yer-own, not use any built bits > from Sun. Yes, that is the route we took with IcedTea of course. But now that we have proven that you can bootstrap the whole system starting with only free bits it would be nice to unify the standard builds again though, so that the default is the same for all of the community. Cheers, Mark From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Dec 19 23:42:38 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:42:38 -0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be build with the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously been using prior to build 42. Expect another build 42 push later today. Thanks, -Xiomara On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: > > The OpenJDK source is available at: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 > > The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are > available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under > Source Code (direct link to bundles: > http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) > > Summary of changes: > http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html > > > -Xiomara > From Dmitri.Trembovetski at Sun.COM Sat Dec 20 01:00:59 2008 From: Dmitri.Trembovetski at Sun.COM (Dmitri Trembovetski) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:00:59 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <494C43CB.6050203@Sun.COM> Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:21 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> The JDK7 early access binary snapshot builds are built from the >> OpenJDK7 sources, plus additional files and repositories we either >> cannot or haven't opened up yet (for various reasons). > > Do you have a list of these additional files and repositories? Is there > anything for which there still isn't a free replacement available? For some of these free replacements are available in the openjdk tree, but they aren't yet of satisfactory quality (like the antialiasing rasterizer), so Sun's proprietary builds won't be switching to those components for a while. Thanks, Dmitri From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Sat Dec 20 01:07:23 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:07:23 +0000 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812191707q5c50d907lb8c6ffb440f3a66@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/19 : > > The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be build with > the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously been using > prior to build 42. > > Expect another build 42 push later today. > > Thanks, > -Xiomara > > > > On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >> >> The OpenJDK source is available at: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 >> >> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are >> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >> >> Summary of changes: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html >> >> >> -Xiomara >> > > Will this change the source bundle? Or by 'bits' do you just mean the binaries? Please clarify. -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Sat Dec 20 01:09:47 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:09:47 -0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0812191707q5c50d907lb8c6ffb440f3a66@mail.gmail.com> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <17c6771e0812191707q5c50d907lb8c6ffb440f3a66@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494C45DB.60903@Sun.COM> On 12/19/08 17:07, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2008/12/19 : > >> The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be build with >> the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously been using >> prior to build 42. >> >> Expect another build 42 push later today. >> >> Thanks, >> -Xiomara >> >> >> >> On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >> >>> The OpenJDK source is available at: >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 >>> >>> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are >>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >>> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >>> >>> Summary of changes: >>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html >>> >>> >>> -Xiomara >>> >>> >> > > > Will this change the source bundle? Or by 'bits' do you just mean the > binaries? Please clarify. > The source will not change. The binaries for linux 32 / 64 bit will change. -Xiomara From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Sat Dec 20 01:23:39 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:23:39 -0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> The re-spin included reverting the linux 32 / 64 bit builds to the older OSs used prior to build 42. The linux binaries here have changed: http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ Everything else should remain the same. -Xiomara On 12/19/08 15:42, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: > > The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be build > with the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously been > using prior to build 42. > > Expect another build 42 push later today. > > Thanks, > -Xiomara > > > > On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >> >> The OpenJDK source is available at: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 >> >> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are >> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under >> Source Code (direct link to bundles: >> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >> >> Summary of changes: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html >> >> >> -Xiomara >> > > From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Sat Dec 20 01:37:13 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:37:13 +0000 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <492A8A90.5030308@redhat.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <194f62550811220759t669a2fd5mf99cd53df1634a6e@mail.gmail.com> <49284B38.70707@sun.com> <17c6771e0811221731h5a4d75baocd5d7eb62ab48544@mail.gmail.com> <1ccfd1c10811221918o71fd40d8l8e6c995e98555448@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0811230041h421c08e4xb2ae07e6e287bcfd@mail.gmail.com> <1ccfd1c10811230941x2e777cb0x37b91344ad90ae63@mail.gmail.com> <492A8A90.5030308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812191737p102fb608i2a133ffe3dbbba0@mail.gmail.com> 2008/11/24 Andrew Haley : > Martin Buchholz wrote: > >> Sun has historically provided binaries as their primary deliverable, >> and continues to operate the "business" side of JDK development in >> that way. The problem of building a binary distribution that will >> run well on as many systems in actual use as possible is a different >> (and probably, harder) problem than what distro maintainers do, >> which is to always take source, never binaries, from upstream, and >> build binaries designed only to ever run on the same system they >> were built on. A packager at a company might want to use Sun's >> approach, and build one set of supported binaries that will work on >> a relatively disparate set of target machines within the company. >> >> Another way of looking at it - it's a (Sun) bug if Sun-built Fedora >> 9 binaries fail to run well on Ubuntu dapper, whereas I doubt that >> the Fedora community itself is aiming for that kind of >> compatibility. > > Indeed not. > > Fedora 9 is a good choice. The main issues when building OpenJDK on > newer GNU/Linux systems are to do with the C++ compiler, which has > changed very significantly since Red Hat AS 2.1 and SUSE 8. In > particular, standard conformance is much closer and optimization more > aggressive. Some previous releases of OpenJDK would not compile on > Fedora 9's compiler and contained bugs that would compile but would > fail in obscure ways. > > I think you'll be fine: my only concern would be whether a (statically > linked) recent version of libstdc++ has any dependencies on a newer > libc. > > Andrew. > I think F9 may have been a little too big a leap, given the complaints today. Something around the age of RHEL5/Debian stable might have been a better choice. That said, I'm not a consumer of these proprietary binaries :) Using the source and IcedTea7: $ ~/build/icedtea/bin/java -version java version "1.7.0_0" IcedTea 1.9-pre-rd9eec6614be5 Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_0-b42) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.0-b09, mixed mode) So I'm happy. -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Sat Dec 20 01:42:23 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:42:23 +0000 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812191742w16d273f8i36000eb680d830ca@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/20 : > > The re-spin included reverting the linux 32 / 64 bit builds to the older OSs > used prior to build 42. The linux binaries here have changed: > http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ > > Everything else should remain the same. > > -Xiomara > > > On 12/19/08 15:42, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >> >> The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be build with >> the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously been using >> prior to build 42. >> >> Expect another build 42 push later today. >> >> Thanks, >> -Xiomara >> >> >> >> On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >>> >>> The OpenJDK source is available at: >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 >>> >>> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are >>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >>> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >>> >>> Summary of changes: >>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html >>> >>> >>> -Xiomara >>> >> >> > > Cool. The source is all I'm bothered about, and IcedTea7 now supports this new b42 source zip. -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Sat Dec 20 01:45:51 2008 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:45:51 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <494C4E4F.9090601@sun.com> I'm just a small (maybe medium sized) cog in the machinery around here. ;^) Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:21 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> The JDK7 early access binary snapshot builds are built from the >> OpenJDK7 sources, plus additional files and repositories we either >> cannot or haven't opened up yet (for various reasons). > > Do you have a list of these additional files and repositories? Is there > anything for which there still isn't a free replacement available? > Priority one, we wanted to either open source or get open source replacements for the binary plugs (openjdk6 only has snmp left?). I know we need to apply these changes to the openjdk7 repos now. And we have a way to build without snmp that we will try and put in place in openjdk7, and maybe get to the point of being able to build both openjdk6 and openjdk7 without those annoying binary plugs. Tests that have not been open sourced require a review for possible legal issues, this takes time, an annoyingly long time. Some sources have been slowly opened up, I think hotspot added the linux sparc sources which used to be closed sources. So some of the sources are moving to the open area as the review process and decisions are made. Yes, progress is slow, but it is progress. The plugin remains the hot potato. I won't go there. :^( >> This build process has been created over the years around the Sun >> JDK product releases, the official build process takes many hours >> and involves things like virus scans etc. >> Not sure it's worth exposing, seems low priority to me anyway. > > Yeah, it probably depends on the etc. But build systems have a tendency > to get entangled with all kinds of local setups and installation issues. > This one is extremely dependent on the internal Sun network, and is mostly home grown. I just can't see any value in spending our time opening this up. > Having a standardized shared build system that people can copy and setup > for their own particular environment does have its advantages though. It > helps the community feel in control of their own niches. > It has been my opinion that we should invest in setting up a Hudson (http://hudson.dev.java.net) system (or equivalent open source build setup). But the idea and any effort is in a pre-infancy stage. If and when we did something like that, we would certainly make the configuration or setup procedure public. >> To guarantee that a OpenJDK7 build only contained OpenJDK7 >> we would have to do a completely separate build. >> Justifying this is difficult when the standard open source >> procedure is to effectively roll-yer-own, not use any built bits >> from Sun. > > Yes, that is the route we took with IcedTea of course. But now that we > have proven that you can bootstrap the whole system starting with only > free bits it would be nice to unify the standard builds again though, so > that the default is the same for all of the community. The Sun JDK product build procedures will likely always be different I can't see them ever being completely the same. When you have something that works, it's hard to justify tearing it apart and risking the stability you have. -kto > > Cheers, > > Mark > From martinrb at google.com Sat Dec 20 07:24:26 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:24:26 -0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10812192324u7bc42568ub1284ce82ff23d78@mail.gmail.com> Hi Xiomara, Thanks for doing the respin. I can confirm that download and java -version now work on my Ubuntu dapper system. Martin On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 15:42, wrote: > > The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be build with > the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously been using > prior to build 42. > > Expect another build 42 push later today. > > Thanks, > -Xiomara > > > > On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >> >> The OpenJDK source is available at: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 >> >> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are >> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >> >> Summary of changes: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html >> >> >> -Xiomara >> > > From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Sat Dec 20 09:05:06 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:05:06 -0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10812192324u7bc42568ub1284ce82ff23d78@mail.gmail.com> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <1ccfd1c10812192324u7bc42568ub1284ce82ff23d78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494CB542.9060509@sun.com> Hi Martin, It is great to hear that java -version is now working on your Ubuntu system. Happy Holidays!! -Xiomara Martin Buchholz wrote: > Hi Xiomara, > > Thanks for doing the respin. > > I can confirm that download and java -version now work on my > Ubuntu dapper system. > > Martin > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 15:42, wrote: > >> The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be build with >> the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously been using >> prior to build 42. >> >> Expect another build 42 push later today. >> >> Thanks, >> -Xiomara >> >> >> >> On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >> >>> The OpenJDK source is available at: >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 >>> >>> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are >>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >>> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >>> >>> Summary of changes: >>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html >>> >>> >>> -Xiomara >>> >>> >> From martinrb at google.com Sat Dec 20 09:07:15 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:07:15 -0800 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10812200107g63cacaddkab5bca80aa8bddfa@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:39, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > So what we need to do is figure out if there is a way to build > on Fedora9 that allows the product to work better on other systems, > or if we need to change to something other than Fedora9. > > Constructive suggestions are welcome. I suggest not trying to use Fedora9 for release engineering builds. Let individual developers use Fedora, if they wish. Use one of the stable supported releases (or their clones) that include glibc 2.3. Either RHEL 4 or Ubuntu dapper would qualify. Martin From hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com Sat Dec 20 16:01:09 2008 From: hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com (hwadechandler-openjdk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:01:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812200107g63cacaddkab5bca80aa8bddfa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <719889.11538.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> CentOS would be good in that case. It is a binary compatible, as it is built from the same sources, RH. Ubuntu is based on Debian is it not? But definitely with RHx or CentOSx you'll get a longer release cycle of the OS itself. Wade ================== Wade Chandler, CCE Software Engineer and Developer, Certified Forensic Computer Examiner, NetBeans Dream Team Member, and NetBeans Board Member http://www.certified-computer-examiner.com http://wiki.netbeans.org/wiki/view/NetBeansDreamTeam http://www.netbeans.org ----- Original Message ---- > From: Martin Buchholz > To: Kelly O'Hair > Cc: discuss at openjdk.java.net; build-dev ; Xiomara Jayasena > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:07:15 AM > Subject: Re: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:39, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > > So what we need to do is figure out if there is a way to build > > on Fedora9 that allows the product to work better on other systems, > > or if we need to change to something other than Fedora9. > > > > Constructive suggestions are welcome. > > I suggest not trying to use Fedora9 for release engineering builds. > Let individual developers use Fedora, if they wish. > > Use one of the stable supported releases (or their clones) that > include glibc 2.3. Either RHEL 4 or Ubuntu dapper would qualify. > > Martin From mark at klomp.org Sun Dec 21 11:26:51 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:26:51 +0100 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <494C43CB.6050203@Sun.COM> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C43CB.6050203@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <1229858811.3443.14.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi Dmitri, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 -0800, Dmitri Trembovetski wrote: > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:21 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > >> The JDK7 early access binary snapshot builds are built from the > >> OpenJDK7 sources, plus additional files and repositories we either > >> cannot or haven't opened up yet (for various reasons). > > > > Do you have a list of these additional files and repositories? Is there > > anything for which there still isn't a free replacement available? > > For some of these free replacements are available in the openjdk > tree, but they aren't yet of satisfactory quality (like the > antialiasing rasterizer) Do you have a list of quality improvements (or maybe test cases) that are needed for these components? Do you know if someone is already working on those improvements? Thanks, Mark From mark at klomp.org Sun Dec 21 11:46:34 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:46:34 +0100 Subject: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9 In-Reply-To: <494C4E4F.9090601@sun.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C4E4F.9090601@sun.com> Message-ID: <1229859994.3443.34.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi Kelly, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:45 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > I'm just a small (maybe medium sized) cog in the machinery around > here. ;^) We small and medium sized cogs need to work together to turn this into a well functioning coding machine! > Mark Wielaard wrote: > Priority one, we wanted to either open source or get open source > replacements for the binary plugs (openjdk6 only has snmp left?). About snmp. Do you happen to know an example program that uses this functionality? That would probably encourage people to get free replacement code to enable such an app. There are two (failing of course) tests in the jtreg jdk suite. Are there any more tests that could be liberated to help implementing this? > Some sources have been slowly opened up, I think hotspot added the > linux > sparc sources which used to be closed sources. Yes, that was very nice! IcedTea6 has this backported and various GNU/Linux distros now come with a hotspot based sparc variant (I know of at least Fedora and Debian). > So some of the sources are moving to the open area as the review > process and decisions are made. Yes, progress is slow, but it is > progress. And thanks a lot for all the progress. I don't want to sound as if I don't see the enormous progress that is being made (and it really is enormous, just the fact that 99% of the whole code base is out there is probably one, if not the, largest liberation of formerly proprietary code ever done!) The reason I do ask questions like these however is to help form an inclusive community. It is hard for those outside Sun to relate at times because there are no roadmaps for some of the progress (and no idea if some of the remaining proprietary stuff will ever be liberated or what the holdup really is). And no roadmap means we have no idea if we are duplicating work or that we are accelerating it. > The plugin remains the hot potato. I won't go there. :^( I don't think that is a very high priority item since we have free replacement code around already anyway that is shipped with all distros now anyway. It could be improvement for sure, since it seems to be missing some of the newer functionality. But basic applets and webstart just work now. Lots of juicy bugs remain however for those wanting to help improve it. Cheers, Mark From mark at klomp.org Sun Dec 21 12:08:14 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:08:14 +0100 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi Xiomara, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:23 -0800, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: > The re-spin included reverting the linux 32 / 64 bit builds to the older > OSs used prior to build 42. > The linux binaries here have changed: > http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ > > Everything else should remain the same. It seems the source bundle also changed its name. The links in your original post below all point to the OpenJDK sources. But the above binaries seem to be something completely different. Are these binaries build from the OpenJDK sources? If so, could you publish them under the OpenJDK terms (GPL/GPL-exception and assembly-exception for the binary blobs as outlined under: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/) Maybe also move them to the page with the rest of the release bits at http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 from the original announcement. Thanks, Mark > On 12/19/08 15:42, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: > > > > The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be build > > with the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously been > > using prior to build 42. > > > > On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: > >> > >> The OpenJDK source is available at: > >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 > >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 > >> > >> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are > >> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under > >> Source Code (direct link to bundles: > >> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) > >> > >> Summary of changes: > >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html > >> > >> > >> -Xiomara From Weijun.Wang at Sun.COM Sun Dec 21 12:58:37 2008 From: Weijun.Wang at Sun.COM (Max (Weijun) Wang) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:58:37 +0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: Hi Mark I'm not a release engineer, but AFAIK, there are 3 kinds of builds here we can do at Sun: 1. Using only the opened repos: Sorry, they do not build. 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs: Build OK, and -version shows openjdk... 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos: Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK... This is probably the version you find on http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ . The two builds are probably using different environment variables also. > It seems the source bundle also changed its name. You mean the 19_dec date? I think this is because the whole build process generates source bundle, executable, and binary plug, and Xiomara's script automatically republishes all of them into multiple pages. Max On Dec 21, 2008, at 8:08 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Xiomara, > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:23 -0800, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >> The re-spin included reverting the linux 32 / 64 bit builds to the >> older >> OSs used prior to build 42. >> The linux binaries here have changed: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ >> >> Everything else should remain the same. > > It seems the source bundle also changed its name. > > The links in your original post below all point to the OpenJDK > sources. > But the above binaries seem to be something completely different. Are > these binaries build from the OpenJDK sources? If so, could you > publish > them under the OpenJDK terms (GPL/GPL-exception and assembly-exception > for the binary blobs as outlined under: http://openjdk.java.net/ > legal/) > > Maybe also move them to the page with the rest of the release bits at > http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 from the original announcement. > > Thanks, > > Mark > >> On 12/19/08 15:42, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >>> >>> The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be >>> build >>> with the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously >>> been >>> using prior to build 42. >>> >>> On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >>>> >>>> The OpenJDK source is available at: >>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 >>>> >>>> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are >>>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under >>>> Source Code (direct link to bundles: >>>> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >>>> >>>> Summary of changes: >>>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html >>>> >>>> >>>> -Xiomara > From mark at klomp.org Sun Dec 21 13:36:00 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:36:00 +0100 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1229866560.3443.158.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 20:58 +0800, Max (Weijun) Wang wrote: > I'm not a release engineer, but AFAIK, there are 3 kinds of builds > here we can do at Sun: > > 1. Using only the opened repos: > Sorry, they do not build. > > 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs: > Build OK, and -version shows openjdk... > > 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos: > Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK... > This is probably the version you find on http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ > . > > The two builds are probably using different environment variables also. Thanks Max. 1) is what we do with IcedTea, although we don't publish any binaries, but the various distros do. 2) Where can I find these? 3) Why are these not published under the same terms as the rest of OpenJDK is? Are these closed repos something different from the binary plugs in 2)? > > It seems the source bundle also changed its name. > > You mean the 19_dec date? I think this is because the whole build > process generates source bundle, executable, and binary plug, and > Xiomara's script automatically republishes all of them into multiple > pages. Aha, yeah, that is probably it. I didn't have the old sources around, so I couldn't compare. But since icedtea[7] is based on these source releases the build broken when the source archive name changed. Cheers, Mark From Weijun.Wang at Sun.COM Sun Dec 21 13:45:34 2008 From: Weijun.Wang at Sun.COM (Max (Weijun) Wang) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:45:34 +0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <1229866560.3443.158.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1229866560.3443.158.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <10413C26-3DFA-4A96-86EF-6D95D3A6898D@Sun.COM> >> 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs: >> Build OK, and -version shows openjdk... >> >> 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos: >> Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK... >> This is probably the version you find on http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ >> > 1) is what we do with IcedTea, although we don't publish any binaries, > but the various distros do. > 2) Where can I find these? I don't know if they are published anywhere. You can try to build yourself, and I believe googling "openjdk build -icedtea" would tell you how people are playing with it. ;) > 3) Why are these not published under the same terms as the rest of > OpenJDK is? > Are these closed repos something different from the binary plugs in > 2)? The major difference is the Java Plugin, and the rest should be the sources for those binary plugs. Max From mark at klomp.org Sun Dec 21 15:22:40 2008 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:22:40 +0100 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <10413C26-3DFA-4A96-86EF-6D95D3A6898D@Sun.COM> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1229866560.3443.158.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <10413C26-3DFA-4A96-86EF-6D95D3A6898D@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <1229872960.3443.256.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Hi Max, On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 21:45 +0800, Max (Weijun) Wang wrote: > >> 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs: > >> Build OK, and -version shows openjdk... > >> > >> 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos: > >> Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK... > >> This is probably the version you find on http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ > >> > > 1) is what we do with IcedTea, although we don't publish any binaries, > > but the various distros do. > > 2) Where can I find these? > > I don't know if they are published anywhere. You can try to build > yourself, and I believe googling "openjdk build -icedtea" would tell > you how people are playing with it. ;) Yes, it isn't hard at all to build. If you use IcedTea with OpenJDK it really is just ./autogen.sh && ./configure && make and then you don't even need any binary plugs. But people were asking for these binaries to do some comparative testing against how Sun builds them. So if you could make 2) available that would be great. > > 3) Why are these not published under the same terms as the rest of > > OpenJDK is? > > Are these closed repos something different from the binary plugs in > > 2)? > > The major difference is the Java Plugin, and the rest should be the > sources for those binary plugs. Aha. Is the inclusion of the Java Plugin the reason for the restricted terms they are distributed under? Could you not make the plugin part of the normal assembly-exception? If not, could you make them available under the normal OpenJDK terms without the plugin? Thanks, Mark From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Sun Dec 21 16:08:02 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:08:02 -0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <494E69E2.5010300@sun.com> Max (Weijun) Wang wrote: > Hi Mark > > I'm not a release engineer, but AFAIK, there are 3 kinds of builds > here we can do at Sun: > > 1. Using only the opened repos: > Sorry, they do not build. > > 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs: > Build OK, and -version shows openjdk... > > 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos: > Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK... > This is probably the version you find on > http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/. > > The two builds are probably using different environment variables also. > >> It seems the source bundle also changed its name. > > You mean the 19_dec date? I think this is because the whole build > process generates source bundle, executable, and binary plug, and > Xiomara's script automatically republishes all of them into multiple > pages. Yes, that is the case. -Xiomara > > Max > > > On Dec 21, 2008, at 8:08 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> Hi Xiomara, >> >> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:23 -0800, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >>> The re-spin included reverting the linux 32 / 64 bit builds to the >>> older >>> OSs used prior to build 42. >>> The linux binaries here have changed: >>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ >>> >>> Everything else should remain the same. >> >> It seems the source bundle also changed its name. >> >> The links in your original post below all point to the OpenJDK sources. >> But the above binaries seem to be something completely different. Are >> these binaries build from the OpenJDK sources? If so, could you publish >> them under the OpenJDK terms (GPL/GPL-exception and assembly-exception >> for the binary blobs as outlined under: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/) >> >> Maybe also move them to the page with the rest of the release bits at >> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7 from the original announcement. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mark >> >>> On 12/19/08 15:42, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >>>> >>>> The JDK 7 build 42 bits will be re-spun. These new bits will be build >>>> with the older linux OSs that Release Engineering had previously been >>>> using prior to build 42. >>>> >>>> On 12/18/08 22:14, Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The OpenJDK source is available at: >>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/94052b872873 >>>>> >>>>> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 42 are >>>>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under >>>>> Source Code (direct link to bundles: >>>>> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >>>>> >>>>> Summary of changes: >>>>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b42.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Xiomara >> > From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Sun Dec 21 19:45:03 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:45:03 +0000 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <1229866560.3443.158.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1229866560.3443.158.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812211145i5b80dffcme0cbc05585700708@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/21 Mark Wielaard : > On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 20:58 +0800, Max (Weijun) Wang wrote: >> I'm not a release engineer, but AFAIK, there are 3 kinds of builds >> here we can do at Sun: >> >> 1. Using only the opened repos: >> Sorry, they do not build. >> >> 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs: >> Build OK, and -version shows openjdk... >> >> 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos: >> Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK... >> This is probably the version you find on http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ >> . >> >> The two builds are probably using different environment variables also. > > Thanks Max. > > 1) is what we do with IcedTea, although we don't publish any binaries, > but the various distros do. No, the distro publish OpenJDK6 binaries not 7. > 2) Where can I find these? > 3) Why are these not published under the same terms as the rest of > OpenJDK is? > Are these closed repos something different from the binary plugs in 2)? > >> > It seems the source bundle also changed its name. >> >> You mean the 19_dec date? I think this is because the whole build >> process generates source bundle, executable, and binary plug, and >> Xiomara's script automatically republishes all of them into multiple >> pages. > > Aha, yeah, that is probably it. I didn't have the old sources around, so > I couldn't compare. But since icedtea[7] is based on these source > releases the build broken when the source archive name changed. > The zip changed. It's probably just internal date data, but the checksum changed as well as the filename and cmp shows the two to be different. > Cheers, > > Mark > > -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From Dmitri.Trembovetski at Sun.COM Mon Dec 22 18:06:45 2008 From: Dmitri.Trembovetski at Sun.COM (Dmitri Trembovetski) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:06:45 -0800 Subject: lcms and pisces quality [was: Re: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9] In-Reply-To: <1229858811.3443.14.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10812190052g1afb570cr6bfbd069bdfdd1d2@mail.gmail.com> <494B87D4.6070700@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812190941t681bc817j24366e20b80fad8c@mail.gmail.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C43CB.6050203@Sun.COM> <1229858811.3443.14.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <494FD735.5040504@Sun.COM> Hi Mark, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Dmitri, > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 -0800, Dmitri Trembovetski wrote: >> Mark Wielaard wrote: >>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:21 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >>>> The JDK7 early access binary snapshot builds are built from the >>>> OpenJDK7 sources, plus additional files and repositories we either >>>> cannot or haven't opened up yet (for various reasons). >>> Do you have a list of these additional files and repositories? Is there >>> anything for which there still isn't a free replacement available? >> For some of these free replacements are available in the openjdk >> tree, but they aren't yet of satisfactory quality (like the >> antialiasing rasterizer) > > Do you have a list of quality improvements (or maybe test cases) that > are needed for these components? Do you know if someone is already > working on those improvements? The engineers who integrated lcms and pisces rendering library may pitch in (they're cc-ed), I know of a few bugs for lcms: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6523398 http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6523402 I believe there are some performance issues as well but I couldn't find the bug ids. Also, I know that pisces has some quality issues especially with large coordinate handling. Performance as well but I couldn't find any filed bugs. Thanks, Dmitri From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Mon Dec 22 18:35:09 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:35:09 +0000 Subject: lcms and pisces quality [was: Re: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9] In-Reply-To: <494FD735.5040504@Sun.COM> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C43CB.6050203@Sun.COM> <1229858811.3443.14.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <494FD735.5040504@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812221035j72857e24p5d7f3cbd999cf093@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/22 Dmitri Trembovetski : > > Hi Mark, > > Mark Wielaard wrote: >> >> Hi Dmitri, >> >> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 -0800, Dmitri Trembovetski wrote: >>> >>> Mark Wielaard wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:21 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The JDK7 early access binary snapshot builds are built from the >>>>> OpenJDK7 sources, plus additional files and repositories we either >>>>> cannot or haven't opened up yet (for various reasons). >>>> >>>> Do you have a list of these additional files and repositories? Is there >>>> anything for which there still isn't a free replacement available? >>> >>> For some of these free replacements are available in the openjdk >>> tree, but they aren't yet of satisfactory quality (like the >>> antialiasing rasterizer) >> >> Do you have a list of quality improvements (or maybe test cases) that >> are needed for these components? Do you know if someone is already >> working on those improvements? > > The engineers who integrated lcms and pisces rendering library > may pitch in (they're cc-ed), I know of a few bugs for lcms: > http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6523398 > http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6523402 > > I believe there are some performance issues as well but I couldn't > find the bug ids. > > Also, I know that pisces has some quality issues especially > with large coordinate handling. Performance as well but I couldn't > find any filed bugs. > > Thanks, > Dmitri > 6523398 is fixed by Keith Seitz's patch in IcedTea (see the discussion on this recently on distro-pkg-dev; we need a more widespread fix so that the system lcms can be used). I think 6523402 has also been discussed in the past on the java2d mailing list. -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From Dmitri.Trembovetski at Sun.COM Mon Dec 22 19:39:15 2008 From: Dmitri.Trembovetski at Sun.COM (Dmitri Trembovetski) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:39:15 -0800 Subject: lcms and pisces quality [was: Re: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms moving to Fedora 9] In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0812221035j72857e24p5d7f3cbd999cf093@mail.gmail.com> References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <494BE78F.1020405@redhat.com> <1ccfd1c10812191055lb78d440qb2c5a2263da04327@mail.gmail.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com> <1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com> <1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <494C43CB.6050203@Sun.COM> <1229858811.3443.14.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <494FD735.5040504@Sun.COM> <17c6771e0812221035j72857e24p5d7f3cbd999cf093@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <494FECE3.3070409@Sun.COM> Other pisces issues mentioned by Jim in http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6610080 - Performance is not as good as the Ductus library - Fixed point is used with little or no overflow protection - No support for the STROKE_CONTROL hint Thanks, Dmitri Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2008/12/22 Dmitri Trembovetski : >> Hi Mark, >> >> Mark Wielaard wrote: >>> Hi Dmitri, >>> >>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 -0800, Dmitri Trembovetski wrote: >>>> Mark Wielaard wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:21 -0800, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >>>>>> The JDK7 early access binary snapshot builds are built from the >>>>>> OpenJDK7 sources, plus additional files and repositories we either >>>>>> cannot or haven't opened up yet (for various reasons). >>>>> Do you have a list of these additional files and repositories? Is there >>>>> anything for which there still isn't a free replacement available? >>>> For some of these free replacements are available in the openjdk >>>> tree, but they aren't yet of satisfactory quality (like the >>>> antialiasing rasterizer) >>> Do you have a list of quality improvements (or maybe test cases) that >>> are needed for these components? Do you know if someone is already >>> working on those improvements? >> The engineers who integrated lcms and pisces rendering library >> may pitch in (they're cc-ed), I know of a few bugs for lcms: >> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6523398 >> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6523402 >> >> I believe there are some performance issues as well but I couldn't >> find the bug ids. >> >> Also, I know that pisces has some quality issues especially >> with large coordinate handling. Performance as well but I couldn't >> find any filed bugs. >> >> Thanks, >> Dmitri >> > > 6523398 is fixed by Keith Seitz's patch in IcedTea (see the discussion > on this recently on distro-pkg-dev; we need a more widespread fix so > that the system lcms can be used). I think 6523402 has also been > discussed in the past on the java2d mailing list. From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Mon Dec 22 22:27:09 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:27:09 -0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0812211145i5b80dffcme0cbc05585700708@mail.gmail.com> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1229866560.3443.158.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0812211145i5b80dffcme0cbc05585700708@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4950143D.8030202@Sun.COM> On 12/21/08 11:45, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2008/12/21 Mark Wielaard : > >> On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 20:58 +0800, Max (Weijun) Wang wrote: >> >>> I'm not a release engineer, but AFAIK, there are 3 kinds of builds >>> here we can do at Sun: >>> >>> 1. Using only the opened repos: >>> Sorry, they do not build. >>> >>> 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs: >>> Build OK, and -version shows openjdk... >>> >>> 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos: >>> Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK... >>> This is probably the version you find on http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ >>> . >>> >>> The two builds are probably using different environment variables also. >>> >> Thanks Max. >> >> 1) is what we do with IcedTea, although we don't publish any binaries, >> but the various distros do. >> > > No, the distro publish OpenJDK6 binaries not 7. > > >> 2) Where can I find these? >> 3) Why are these not published under the same terms as the rest of >> OpenJDK is? >> Are these closed repos something different from the binary plugs in 2)? >> >> >>>> It seems the source bundle also changed its name. >>>> >>> You mean the 19_dec date? I think this is because the whole build >>> process generates source bundle, executable, and binary plug, and >>> Xiomara's script automatically republishes all of them into multiple >>> pages. >>> >> Aha, yeah, that is probably it. I didn't have the old sources around, so >> I couldn't compare. But since icedtea[7] is based on these source >> releases the build broken when the source archive name changed. >> >> > > The zip changed. It's probably just internal date data, but the > checksum changed as well as the filename and cmp shows the two to be > different. > To clarify -- for this re-spin: 1) The source remained the same. 2) Al l builds for all the eight platforms were re-built, so as to be able to publish all platform builds for build 42 with the same build number and date. 3) The linux 32/ 64 were built on the OS that were used prior to build 42. i.e. RH2.1 and SUSE 8. The original build 42 bundles, binaries, etc. should be toss out and replace with the new build 42 bundles. I hope this adds clarity rather than confusion ;-) -Xiomara > >> Cheers, >> >> Mark >> >> >> > > > > From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Mon Dec 22 23:00:55 2008 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:00:55 +0000 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4950143D.8030202@Sun.COM> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1229866560.3443.158.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0812211145i5b80dffcme0cbc05585700708@mail.gmail.com> <4950143D.8030202@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <17c6771e0812221500r4c2b1321nf9e2ebdb14f0eab5@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/22 : > On 12/21/08 11:45, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > 2008/12/21 Mark Wielaard : > > > On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 20:58 +0800, Max (Weijun) Wang wrote: > > > I'm not a release engineer, but AFAIK, there are 3 kinds of builds > here we can do at Sun: > > 1. Using only the opened repos: > Sorry, they do not build. > > 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs: > Build OK, and -version shows openjdk... > > 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos: > Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK... > This is probably the version you find on > http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ > . > > The two builds are probably using different environment variables also. > > > Thanks Max. > > 1) is what we do with IcedTea, although we don't publish any binaries, > but the various distros do. > > > No, the distro publish OpenJDK6 binaries not 7. > > > > 2) Where can I find these? > 3) Why are these not published under the same terms as the rest of > OpenJDK is? > Are these closed repos something different from the binary plugs in 2)? > > > > It seems the source bundle also changed its name. > > > You mean the 19_dec date? I think this is because the whole build > process generates source bundle, executable, and binary plug, and > Xiomara's script automatically republishes all of them into multiple > pages. > > > Aha, yeah, that is probably it. I didn't have the old sources around, so > I couldn't compare. But since icedtea[7] is based on these source > releases the build broken when the source archive name changed. > > > > The zip changed. It's probably just internal date data, but the > checksum changed as well as the filename and cmp shows the two to be > different. > > > To clarify -- for this re-spin: > 1) The source remained the same. > 2) Al l builds for all the eight platforms were re-built, so as to be able > to publish all platform builds for build 42 with the same build number and > date. > 3) The linux 32/ 64 were built on the OS that were used prior to build 42. > i.e. RH2.1 and SUSE 8. > > The original build 42 bundles, binaries, etc. should be toss out and replace > with the new build 42 bundles. > > I hope this adds clarity rather than confusion ;-) > > -Xiomara > > > > Cheers, > > Mark > > > > > > The source itself may have remained the same, but the zip file itself changed, necessitating another download and changes in IcedTea. -- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Mon Dec 22 23:17:20 2008 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:17:20 -0800 Subject: RE-SPIN: JDK 7 build 42 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0812221500r4c2b1321nf9e2ebdb14f0eab5@mail.gmail.com> References: <494B3BBD.8080108@Sun.COM> <494C316E.9060108@Sun.COM> <494C491B.7050405@Sun.COM> <1229861294.3443.63.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <1229866560.3443.158.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0812211145i5b80dffcme0cbc05585700708@mail.gmail.com> <4950143D.8030202@Sun.COM> <17c6771e0812221500r4c2b1321nf9e2ebdb14f0eab5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2F75A538-9238-4B86-BD6E-7FD998BE79EE@sun.com> On Dec 22, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2008/12/22 : >> On 12/21/08 11:45, Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> >> 2008/12/21 Mark Wielaard : >> >> >> On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 20:58 +0800, Max (Weijun) Wang wrote: >> >> >> I'm not a release engineer, but AFAIK, there are 3 kinds of builds >> here we can do at Sun: >> >> 1. Using only the opened repos: >> Sorry, they do not build. >> >> 2. Using the opened repos plus the binary plugs: >> Build OK, and -version shows openjdk... >> >> 3. Using the opened repos plus the closed repos: >> Build OK, also emits the binary plugs, and -version shows JDK... >> This is probably the version you find on >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/ >> . >> >> The two builds are probably using different environment variables >> also. >> >> >> Thanks Max. >> >> 1) is what we do with IcedTea, although we don't publish any >> binaries, >> but the various distros do. >> >> >> No, the distro publish OpenJDK6 binaries not 7. >> >> >> >> 2) Where can I find these? >> 3) Why are these not published under the same terms as the rest of >> OpenJDK is? >> Are these closed repos something different from the binary plugs in >> 2)? >> >> >> >> It seems the source bundle also changed its name. >> >> >> You mean the 19_dec date? I think this is because the whole build >> process generates source bundle, executable, and binary plug, and >> Xiomara's script automatically republishes all of them into multiple >> pages. >> >> >> Aha, yeah, that is probably it. I didn't have the old sources >> around, so >> I couldn't compare. But since icedtea[7] is based on these source >> releases the build broken when the source archive name changed. >> >> >> >> The zip changed. It's probably just internal date data, but the >> checksum changed as well as the filename and cmp shows the two to be >> different. >> >> >> To clarify -- for this re-spin: >> 1) The source remained the same. >> 2) Al l builds for all the eight platforms were re-built, so as to >> be able >> to publish all platform builds for build 42 with the same build >> number and >> date. >> 3) The linux 32/ 64 were built on the OS that were used prior to >> build 42. >> i.e. RH2.1 and SUSE 8. >> >> The original build 42 bundles, binaries, etc. should be toss out >> and replace >> with the new build 42 bundles. >> >> I hope this adds clarity rather than confusion ;-) >> >> -Xiomara >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> >> >> > > The source itself may have remained the same, but the zip file itself > changed, necessitating another download and changes in IcedTea. The contents in the source should not have changed, although the zip was regenerated and has a new date. Yes, to be able to have jdk 7 build 42 the bits dated 12/19 would be needed. -Xiomara > > -- > Andrew :-) > > Support Free Java! > Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK > http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath > http://openjdk.java.net > > PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) > Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8