On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:51 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 5:20 PM Robert Relyea <rrelyea(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/10/22 6:29 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic
> >
> > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> > process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> > community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
> > by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > This is initial step to move JDKs to be more like other JDKs, to build
> > proper transferable images, and to lower certification burden of each
> > binary. Long storyshort, first step in:
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs
> >
> > This first step will move, one by one, individual JDKs in F37 to be
> > built `--with-stdc++lib=static` and against in-tree (bundeld)
> > libraries: `--with-zlib="bundled"
--with-freetype="bundled"
> > --with-libjpeg="bundled" --with-giflib="bundled"
> > --withlibpng="bundled" --with-lcms="bundled"
> > --with-harfbuzz="bundled" `
> >
> > We already made a heavy testing of the behavior, and user should not
> > face negative experience. I'm not sure if this is
>
> I'm very confused on why this reduces certification burden. In our
> crypto libraries this is exactly the kind of behavior we would *NOT*
> want packages to do because it increases our certification and support
> burden.
>
I'm confused how this would not negatively impact the user experience,
because things like FreeType and HarfBuzz in Fedora have features and
configuration that are non-default that improve the font rendering
capabilities of applications that link to FreeType. I would rather
have our shared maintenance and evolution of font stuff be reused in
Java too...
I agree, I don't think there's positives for the user experience here.
And I don't understand what actual problem this change is trying to
solve?
Are people really installing OpenJDK RPM packages, taking the
"/usr/bin/java" binary, and putting it onto some other system?
Unless that's really the case (and I don't think that should even ever
be supported for distro packages), I don't see a reason to change how
we build OpenJDK.
Also, I am particularly concerned with this statement from the linked
follow-up change:
"After this change is in air, we will certificate each binary only
once, and redistribute."
I cannot see how Fedora RPM packages for OpenJDK can redistributing
pre-built binaries would ever be considered acceptable.
Fabio