jeff at licquia.org
Fri Apr 25 13:56:04 PDT 2008
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Lost you here. Could you be more specific what you are referring to as
> "what's out there"?
I was referring to:
>>> I think Sun is on the hook (so to speak) to make sure that a FOSS
>>> community wishing to produce a JVM can assert they are compliant. I
>>> think this has been done (delta, advertising it better).
> If I read the license correctly, the provider of the LSB conformance
> tests can't actually redistribute the JCK. I think this is easily
> solved by something like:
> "Conformance to the LSB also implies conformance to the JCK which can
> be obtained by the following easy procedure....".
Yeah, I think that's what we're waiting for.
> By my reading of the license, Sun doesn't get in the business of
> "certifing JCK results" (I think I said otherwise earlier in the tread -
> I've been corrected). Its up to the LSB to either certify the results
> to your satisfaction or to let the distros self-certify. This is kinda
> a self-correcting problem. It wouldn't be pretty if a distro asserted
> Java conformance and then got caught by some blogger. Ain't the Linux
> community wonderful! (Seriously, a great attribute.)
We should be fine with that. Does the JCK have a machine-readable
report format? We'd probably want to munge it into TET journals, which
is our preferred format for test results.
What we might have been thinking was that Sun wouldn't necessarily want
to outsource the decision of "this JVM is Java" to a third party. And
maybe Sun isn't. Are you thinking of a "Java-compliant" kind of thing,
sorta like our "LSB-compliant" vs. "LSB-certified" distinction?
> Yep. My sub-plan is to state what I think should be done and then
> iterate from there. This is the fun part!
> One of *my* goals is that we (Sun) get a lot of "defect reports" from
> the Linux community, where there seems to be a lot of different views
> from the community as to how things *should* be done. I'm hoping to
> place Sun in the position of being able to say, "thanks for sharing, but
> the LSB asserts differently". Heh, I'm not just doing this because I'm
> just a nice guy... :-)
OK. We'll look forward to that list.
More information about the lsb-discuss