On 09-05-2015 11:18, [email protected] wrote: > Author: pierre > Date: Sat May 9 07:18:12 2015 > New Revision: 15947 > > Log: > Improve wording and explanations for OpenJDK tests and cacerts generation. > Adapted > from an HTML patch by Paul Rogers. >
> + <para> > + Although the test infrastructure of > <application>OpenJDK</application> > + is not easy to use, it is recommended to run the tests in order to > + make sure that the JVM runs fine. A malfunctionning JVM may have > + catastrophic consequences in term of security. Cannot understand why you didn't discuss these in this list, after having asked for a discussion. Did you really wanted a discussion? It is desirable that what you two discuss be in the list, not privately. I do not agree with *recommendation* for these tests. The word *catastrophic* is too generic and dramatic (politicians and press like it). It does not give an explanation of what are the catastrophes nor why running the test suite will prevent these catastrophes, because later it is stated that errors in the test suite are acceptable. I asked clarification about this, still... In summary, "running the tests is *recommended*, because a malfunctionning JVM may have *catastrophic* consequences in term(s?) (is there a typo in the book?) of security, although tests errors are acceptable, consequently they *do not guarantee* that the JVM is malfunctioning or not". -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
