Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
On 01/22/2015 02:23 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else. >>> >>> How do automated builds factor into that? >> >> I don't think it makes any difference. But IANAL, and you'd have to >> read the TCK agreement for more information. > > I mean, if an automated system builds the binary packages rather than > a human developer, who is allowed to test those packages? Ah, I see the confusion. By "you" I mean "you" as in Debian; i.e. an organization is supposed to use the OpenJDK TCK to test the binaries they ship. I don't think that people or organizations are allowed to set up a "TCK testing service" for other people's OpenJDK builds. But, again, IANAL: the details are in the TCK agreement. Andrew. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c109e8.3080...@redhat.com
Re: Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >>> That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your >>> own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else. >> >>How do automated builds factor into that? > > I don't think it makes any difference. But IANAL, and you'd have to > read the TCK agreement for more information. I mean, if an automated system builds the binary packages rather than a human developer, who is allowed to test those packages? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6HJF19xWaSmsiLKaWPefN-jw6N=jj2_h1iepip4x3a...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
>On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your >> own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else. > >How do automated builds factor into that? I don't think it makes any difference. But IANAL, and you'd have to read the TCK agreement for more information. You can't run a full TCK as part of an automated test anyway, because there are some interacive tests. Andrew. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c1051f.80...@redhat.com
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
Le 22/01/2015 00:14, Matthias Klose a écrit : > most of this is ranting, and marketing. I, for one, welcome our new marketing overlords and their lovely duke-decorated TCK certificates ;) http://www.azulsystems.com/sites/default/files/pdf/cert.zulu1.8.0_25-8.4.0.1-x86lx64.deb.pdf Emmanuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c0462f.1000...@apache.org
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
Le 18/01/2015 23:21, Jonathan Yu a écrit : > I wonder if there's anything that can (or should) be done to address > Gil's criticisms. I love Debian and would always prefer to install > things via apt-get from the official repositories rather than > download/install third-party packages, so it would be nice to address > these issues. Another thought regarding the compatibility testing, in Debian we have another significant test suite: the Debian archive itself. Debian contains about 1000 Java packages, 50 million lines of codes, that get rebuilt with every new version of Java packaged. So if a new version of Java introduces a regression we quickly notice it. For Java 8 we still have about 25 packages [1] that do not compile or have test failures, but this is not specific to Debian. Emmanuel Bourg [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=openjdk-8-transition;users=debian-java@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c04220.1030...@apache.org
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
On 01/18/2015 11:21 PM, Jonathan Yu wrote: > Hey everyone, > > Awhile back, there was a question on the Mechanical Sympathy mailing list > (if you haven't heard of it before, it's a group for discussing development > of high-performance programs, mainly focussing on Java). > > Gil Tene (CTO and Co-Founder of Azul Systems) provided a critical > comparison of Azul's build of OpenJDK (Zulu) as compared to the package > currently in Debian. > > Quoting from his post: > > To my knowledge, Zulu is currently the only OpenJDK 8 binary build > available that is actually fully tested. When I say "actually fully > tested", I mean that someone actually states that the specific binary > package has passed the full set of OpenJDK TCK tests, and is verified to be > a compatible and complaint implementation of the Java SE 8 spec. Azul > certifies this for each Zulu binary package. > > So for Java 8 (right now) your choices are OpenJDK (via the Zulu binary > distros) or Oracle JDK. Both are well tested, compatibility-verified JDK 8 > binaries. And both are available for Linux, Windows, and MacOS. > > And no, that thing called "openjdk-8-jdk" that you would unfortunately get > when you do an apt-get from the experimental or sid debian repos is not a > good OpenJDK build. It currently appears shows as 8u40, which is something > that doesn't actually exist yet. OpenJDK 8u40 is schedule to come out in > March, and anything called "8u40" right now (without clear early access > indicators) is certainly not a good release of anything. > > > I wonder if there's anything that can (or should) be done to address Gil's > criticisms. I love Debian and would always prefer to install things via > apt-get from the official repositories rather than download/install > third-party packages, so it would be nice to address these issues. > > Here's a link to the full thread: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mechanical-sympathy/jQGahuzJKM4 most of this is ranting, and marketing. please ask azul to post jtreg test results (and/or compare these for yourself) and find out that the Debian packages are on par or better than the azul packages. Debian doesn't have access to the TCK, and Debian shouldn't go into any defensive mode to compare to any non-publically available test suite. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c032b8.8010...@debian.org
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
On 01/19/2015 03:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 19/01/15 11:35, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> I've requested an access to the TCK for Java 8 in June to >> run it on the Debian packages but I haven't heard back from Oracle yet. > > I'd ping them again. this is a problem. I now got access to the TCK for Java 8, however it took about 14 months for me. Just publicly pinging doesn't help unfortunately. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c0318e.9020...@debian.org
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your > own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else. How do automated builds factor into that? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6Ezqus=6fuk_dh1r26hjx_gyuv54wxnbj+ue0+lcfw...@mail.gmail.com
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
On 19/01/15 11:35, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > I've requested an access to the TCK for Java 8 in June to > run it on the Debian packages but I haven't heard back from Oracle yet. I'd ping them again. Andrew. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54bd17a6.6050...@redhat.com
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
On 19/01/15 00:20, Paul Wise wrote: > If there are individuals who have access to the TCK and could > validate the package and file bugs, that would be great. That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else. Andrew. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54bd1794.5020...@redhat.com
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
Le 19/01/2015 01:20, Paul Wise a écrit : > The actual version is 8u40~b09-1, which means Debian revision 1 of > beta 9 of 8u40. It sounds like he misinterpreted this version. Perhaps > expanding the b to beta would help here? 'b' stands for 'build' here, not 'beta'. A new OpenJDK build is tagged every week [1]. The build 09 for example was tagged on October 3rd [2]. Emmanuel Bourg [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u40-dev/jdk/tags [2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u40-dev/jdk/rev/064adeb65ce8 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54bcf551.1040...@apache.org
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
Hi Jonathan, Le 18/01/2015 23:21, Jonathan Yu a écrit : > I wonder if there's anything that can (or should) be done to address > Gil's criticisms. I love Debian and would always prefer to install > things via apt-get from the official repositories rather than > download/install third-party packages, so it would be nice to address > these issues. Gil is right to point out that the current version of the openjdk-8 package (8u40 build 09) doesn't match an official Java release, it's an intermediary build of the upcoming Java 8u40. I have no idea if it's TCK compliant, but it contains more bug fixes than the latest official Java 8 version available (8u25). Regardless of the TCK compliance, if you are going to use a new version of the JDK in production you have to test it thoroughly with your application. This is true with any JDK, be it the Oracle one, a Debian/Fedora/Gentoo OpenJDK build or the little-known Zulu JDK. The mere TCK compliance doesn't protect you against subtle regressions, no test suite does. About the TCK, Canonical is a licensee [1] and most certainly run it on their openjdk-8 package for Ubuntu. If a compatibility issue was to be found I'm pretty confident the fix would be shared with the Debian package. Also I've requested an access to the TCK for Java 8 in June to run it on the Debian packages but I haven't heard back from Oracle yet. Emmanuel Bourg [1] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54bcec01.4000...@apache.org
Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Jonathan Yu wrote: > To my knowledge, Zulu is currently the only OpenJDK 8 binary build available > that is actually fully tested. When I say "actually fully tested", I mean > that someone actually states that the specific binary package has passed the > full set of OpenJDK TCK tests, and is verified to be a compatible and > complaint implementation of the Java SE 8 spec. Azul certifies this for each > Zulu binary package. AFAICT the OpenJDK TCK is non-free so it can't go into Debian main, we can't use it during the package build process and we can't do automatic as-installed testing to ensure it works when installed. If there are individuals who have access to the TCK and could validate the package and file bugs, that would be great. http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-tck-license.pdf http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/ http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep8/ http://ci.debian.net/ > And no, that thing called "openjdk-8-jdk" that you would unfortunately get > when you do an apt-get from the experimental or sid debian repos is not a > good OpenJDK build. It currently appears shows as 8u40, which is something > that doesn't actually exist yet. OpenJDK 8u40 is schedule to come out in > March, and anything called "8u40" right now (without clear early access > indicators) is certainly not a good release of anything. The actual version is 8u40~b09-1, which means Debian revision 1 of beta 9 of 8u40. It sounds like he misinterpreted this version. Perhaps expanding the b to beta would help here? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caktje6ewspn5bdjph9js3dcgq-zgkndmtcomz2jqgvpp8xi...@mail.gmail.com
OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu
Hey everyone, Awhile back, there was a question on the Mechanical Sympathy mailing list (if you haven't heard of it before, it's a group for discussing development of high-performance programs, mainly focussing on Java). Gil Tene (CTO and Co-Founder of Azul Systems) provided a critical comparison of Azul's build of OpenJDK (Zulu) as compared to the package currently in Debian. Quoting from his post: To my knowledge, Zulu is currently the only OpenJDK 8 binary build available that is actually fully tested. When I say "actually fully tested", I mean that someone actually states that the specific binary package has passed the full set of OpenJDK TCK tests, and is verified to be a compatible and complaint implementation of the Java SE 8 spec. Azul certifies this for each Zulu binary package. So for Java 8 (right now) your choices are OpenJDK (via the Zulu binary distros) or Oracle JDK. Both are well tested, compatibility-verified JDK 8 binaries. And both are available for Linux, Windows, and MacOS. And no, that thing called "openjdk-8-jdk" that you would unfortunately get when you do an apt-get from the experimental or sid debian repos is not a good OpenJDK build. It currently appears shows as 8u40, which is something that doesn't actually exist yet. OpenJDK 8u40 is schedule to come out in March, and anything called "8u40" right now (without clear early access indicators) is certainly not a good release of anything. I wonder if there's anything that can (or should) be done to address Gil's criticisms. I love Debian and would always prefer to install things via apt-get from the official repositories rather than download/install third-party packages, so it would be nice to address these issues. Here's a link to the full thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mechanical-sympathy/jQGahuzJKM4 Cheers, Jonathan
