IcedTea bin release question

[Andrew Haley]

On 12/30/2009 07:21 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:

> Hello all.  It's been a while since I've messed with IcedTea/OpenJDK
> builds.  I was wondering what exactly is required to build a binary
> release of IcedTea for a "distro" and call it "JDK6 compatible?"
> From when I first looked at adding IcedTea/OpenJDK to the BLFS book,
> it seems that I read something of a TCK requirement of 100% and
> nothing less (nor would I want anything less), and I had to jump
> through some hoops to get at it (NDA or something to that effect and
> maybe some cost).

There's no cost, but you have to apply to Sun to get it.  See
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-tck-license.pdf

> I can't seem to find where I had read that now.  What steps (if any)
> do I have to go through to get access to the TCK, and is it even
> required now or are the built-in tests sufficient (or are there even
> built-in, released tests)?

There are, but you still need the TCK to be officially compatible.

> For those unfamiliar, LFS is an educational book, not really a
> distro...a system is built entirely from source code following
> provided instructions.  Some might refer to it as something akin to
> Gentoo or SourceMage, but completely without automation (and far
> lesser package coverage).  The purpose of my request is simply to
> rid users of the gcj requirement, both to provide faster build
> times, and to provide the option of using the pre-built one (as it
> has always been provided for the closed JDK in the past).  I suppose
> another option is to create a tarball from the Fedora or Ubuntu
> packages, but I'd still like to verify that the resultant OpenJDK
> passes the TCK.

Well, to be fully compatible with all the rules, you'll have to run
the TCK against every build.  I'm not sure how much sense that makes
in your environment, but I suppose it's nice to run it once, just to
be sure.

Andrew.