version number [Re: changeset in /hg/icedtea6: 2008-06-11 Lillian Angel <langel at re...]

[David Herron]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 11:35 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>   
>> Lillian Angel schrieb:
>>     
>>> changeset 485da23424a2 in /hg/icedtea6
>>> details: http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea6?cmd=changeset;node=485da23424a2
>>> description:
>>> 	2008-06-11  Lillian Angel  <langel at redhat.com>
>>>
>>> 	        * Makefile.am: Added JDK_UPDATE_VERSION to environment. Some applets,
>>> 	        like the Sun's verify Java version applet, check for the "_" in the
>>> 	        version string. Our version string format is now correct:
>>> 	        java version "1.6.0_0"
>>> 	        OpenJDK  Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_0-b10)
>>> 	        OpenJDK Server VM (build 1.6.0_0-b10, mixed mode)
>>> 	        * Makefile.in: Regenerated.
>>>       
>> Do we really want this? According to
>> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/version-6.html
>> the underscore isn't mentioned at all. Is this further specified?
>>
>> This schema also differs with the Java 6 version number, which displays
>> "1.6.0_06" for the version, and "1.6.0_06-b02" for the full version. Apparently
>> "b02"is used here for the build number, while for OpenJDK the "bxx" part is used
>> as service release / new code drop.
>>     
>
> This actually came from the discussion you and I had on irc. As you
> pointed out one of the first applets people try after installing
> openjdk/icedtea/gcjwebplugin is the test applet one from sun. To verify
> that everything installed fine. That applet fails very ungracefully
> since it assumes the version number from the java.version system
> property has an underscore in it. Apparently applications use this to
> check whether you are running the latest "update version". And they die
> horribly if they don't see the "update number" in the java.version
> property as an underscore-number pair (basically stuffing an empty
> string into new Integer and die when that doesn't parse). Of course
> without the source code it is somewhat hard, maybe we can find someone
> that could find the code for this particular application. But people
> will want to run existing applications, so even if the code makes wrong
> assumptions and we can make them work anyway it is a good idea to add
> the support.
>
> Some more analysis is also in this fedora bug report:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449959
>
> I don't know if "0" is a good update number to use, or whether other
> applications expect an higher version there. It would be best if
> applications detected openjdk as the latest and greatest available.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
>   

Hey, FWIW, I sent an email to the people in charge of that applet.

They're working on changing it ...

- David Herron


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20080616/21da90d5/attachment.html