On 2/22/2011 3:51 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 22 February 2011 17:26, Phil Race wrote:
We believe LCMS 2.0 should pass JCK, but I don't know if a full JCK run
has been performed against a fully open 7 build since it went in.
A 6-open backport would find any problems there.
I wasn't a
On 22 February 2011 17:26, Phil Race wrote:
> On 2/20/2011 9:39 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> On 15 February 2011 20:23, Phil Race wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/15/2011 6:07 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
Yes, IcedTea uses system libraries for everything bar LCMS, where
local chan
On 2/20/2011 9:39 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 15 February 2011 20:23, Phil Race wrote:
On 2/15/2011 6:07 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
Yes, IcedTea uses system libraries for everything bar LCMS, where
local changes in OpenJDK mean we are still forced to use the in-tree
version. The
On 15 February 2011 20:23, Phil Race wrote:
> On 2/15/2011 6:07 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> Yes, IcedTea uses system libraries for everything bar LCMS, where
>> local changes in OpenJDK mean we are still forced to use the in-tree
>> version. There hasn't been any success upstreaming th
Steve Poole wrote:
:
Running zlibs own tests is unlikely to be too helpful. I'd be quite
happy to run any JDK tests you have and there are also testcases in
Apache Harmony for the related Java APIs. I'm curious to understand
just what level of testing is already done though?
I wasn't clear
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 10:20 +, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Steve Poole wrote:
> > :
> > What sort of testing did you have in mind? You mean run the zlib tests
> > and/or OpenJDK testcases?
> >
> To be honest, I don't know. The zip tests should clearly be run but they
> are unlikely to stress th
Steve Poole wrote:
:
What sort of testing did you have in mind? You mean run the zlib tests
and/or OpenJDK testcases?
To be honest, I don't know. The zip tests should clearly be run but they
are unlikely to stress the zip code in the same way that the IDEs, app
servers, and other big appli
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 12:53 +, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Steve Poole wrote:
> > :
> > I can appreciate why you want to be cautious right now - but it is
> > important that the codebase is regularly upgraded. If IcedTea have shown
> > that 1.2.5 is "ok" then I'd say the risk is quite low.
> >
> >
Steve Poole wrote:
:
I can appreciate why you want to be cautious right now - but it is
important that the codebase is regularly upgraded. If IcedTea have shown
that 1.2.5 is "ok" then I'd say the risk is quite low.
For JDK 8 it would make sense to discuss the pros and cons of relying on
the
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 09:17 -0800, Xueming Shen wrote:
> One of the benefits of using a 5-year old version is that it has been
> thoroughly tested by
> various software for 5 years, given we actually don't have lots of tests
> for zlib ourself, this
> is very important, at least for me, when cons
On 2/15/2011 6:07 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
Yes, IcedTea uses system libraries for everything bar LCMS, where
local changes in OpenJDK mean we are still forced to use the in-tree
version. There hasn't been any success upstreaming these changes,
though I haven't looked at LCMS 2.x.
L
One of the benefits of using a 5-year old version is that it has been
thoroughly tested by
various software for 5 years, given we actually don't have lots of tests
for zlib ourself, this
is very important, at least for me, when considering upgrade, especially
at this late stage
of the release I
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew John Hughes:
>
>> So yes, that means we use the system zlib (currently 1.2.5 here), jpeg
>> (8c) and png (1.4.5). 1.10 will also finally remove the static
>> linking of libstdc++ and libgcc. This was done back in the early days
>>
* Andrew John Hughes:
> So yes, that means we use the system zlib (currently 1.2.5 here), jpeg
> (8c) and png (1.4.5). 1.10 will also finally remove the static
> linking of libstdc++ and libgcc. This was done back in the early days
> of IcedTea as part of preparing OpenJDK for distro packaging,
On 15 February 2011 13:57, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Steve Poole wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> JDK7 is using zlib 1.2.3 (which was added to JDK7 back in 2009.)
>> Zlib's latest version is 1.2.5 - is there any expectation to move to
>> 1.2.5 in JDK7? It seems a real shame to ship JDK7 with a version of
>>
Steve Poole wrote:
Hi all,
JDK7 is using zlib 1.2.3 (which was added to JDK7 back in 2009.)
Zlib's latest version is 1.2.5 - is there any expectation to move to
1.2.5 in JDK7? It seems a real shame to ship JDK7 with a version of
zlib that is so out of date.
More than happy to help cont
Hi all,
JDK7 is using zlib 1.2.3 (which was added to JDK7 back in 2009.)
Zlib's latest version is 1.2.5 - is there any expectation to move to
1.2.5 in JDK7? It seems a real shame to ship JDK7 with a version of
zlib that is so out of date.
More than happy to help contribute towards making
17 matches
Mail list logo
