Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
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 agree that the wording seems to be a bit too ominous. I also do not like the
passive voice of 'it is recommended...'.
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".
How about:
"Although the test infrastructure of <application>OpenJDK</application>
is not easy to use, the editors recommend running the tests in order to
make sure that the JVM runs properly. A malfunctioning JVM may have
adverse security consequences."
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
