[lsb-discuss] LSb Java

Robert Schweikert rschweikert at novell.com
Thu Jun 17 03:48:37 PDT 2010

On 06/16/2010 04:36 PM, Pavel Shved wrote:
> Hi.
> A couple of words from the guy who was doing the project.
> On Monday 07 June 2010 18:14:34 Robert Schweikert wrote:
>> The goal of the GSoC project was in my mind to make openJDK LSB
>> compliant and NOT, add a mode in which I can build openJDK in an LSB
>> compliant way. These are quite different goals and the GSoC produced a
>> way in which one can build openJDK in an LSB compliant way.
> You're right.  But we also aimed another goal: keep all the functionality 
> that presents in OpenJDK.  Could these goals be achieved simultaneously?  
> We didn't know before we started the scrutiny of OpenJDK during the 
> summer.

> Another reason to create an "LSB build of OpenJDK" was that, 
> surprisingly, OpenJDK happened to use bootstrapping.  We had agreed 
> before that we need only compliant JRE, and a java compiler tools might 
> be out of LSB coverage. 

Yes, you are correct and I apologize for being imprecise in my chosen
wording and using openJDK to imply the JRE, when I should have just used
JRE in my original message. The JRE is all we care about from an LSB
point of view.

> Therefore, after the aforementioned scrutiny, I realized, that before 
> OpenJDK and LSB come to an agreement of sorts, or before LSB evolves, 
> upstream OpenJDK wouldn't become LSB-compliant.  So I aimed creating an 
> LSB build, that could live apart from trunk of OpenJDK.

This was certainly a lot of effort, thanks for the work. However, this
was a major shift in the scope and target of the project and thus should
have been discussed on the list.
> The build created can be easily be maintained 

This is were we have a major problem. Considering that we already have
resource issues and basically no outside contributors/helpers
maintaining anything that is not part of the LSB is not a possibility.


> The results, unfortunately didn't meet all the expectations. 

That's OK, in my mind what is bothersome is that we still lack an answer
to the most fundamental question. Can we get an LSB compliant JRE with
appropriate patches pushed upstream?

One of the major concerns from previous appchk analysis of the JRE was
the use of syscall. IMHO this is where things should have started, run
appcheck on the JRE and then focus on those areas only. I am aware that
this is Monday morning quarterbacking and I apologize for raising this
basically a year too late.


> However, a 
> proper investigation of OpenJDK was performed, and, at least, we got an 
> LSB build.
> References:
> [1]:  GitWeb interface to LSB wrappers folder
> http://git.coldattic.info/cgi-
> bin/gitweb/?p=openjdk7.git;a=tree;f=hotspot/lsb;hb=c29b600ec850f122b81ea4d50d5f039780b12552
> --
> Pavel Shved
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss

Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
Software Engineer Consultant                          LINUX
rschweikert at novell.com

Making IT Work As One

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list