On 5/18/22 06:45, jiri vanek wrote:
> Why did you give up?
>
I'm unable to enumerate number of bugs we solved, or even dropped as unsolvable due
to dynamic nature of distribution-correct JDK.
Can you provide an example of an unsolvable one?
> At one point AdoptOpenJDK distributed binaries that were not
tested
> against the TCK (
https://dzone.com/articles/an-overview-on-jdk-vendors).
They indeed did it once, and had pretty hard time fromthat. Now they TCK propelry.
>
> Why is running the TCK such a burden? Is it due to hardware
> resource limitations? Do we really need to claim that
> we are Java SE compatible?
We ahve claim the comaptibility. Tck run in the paralel mode 24h per os and arch and jdk.
And there are tricky issues, and even more tricky failures. So both human and hw cycles
are heavily under preassure
Why is claiming compatibility necessary?
> Is this purely because of the TCK requirement? If so, I would
prefer
> that Fedora ship an uncertified binary, or ship both a certified
> static binary and an uncertified dynamic binary, with the latter
> being the default.
Interesting idea. Not sure if legally possible but worthy of shot.
If Fedora legally cannot ship a version of OpenJDK that hasn’t
passed the TCK, but which is still compatible with the vast majority
of Java code, then OpenJDK isn’t free software and Fedora cannot
ship it at all. Conversely, if OpenJDK is free software, then Fedora
can strip out any problematic trademarks without losing compatibility.
--
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)