On 09-05-2015 17:12, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > 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."
Again, it is not true the editor recommend: I don't. Again, the tests have several errors, they are not 100% error free, so they do not guarantee that the JVM runs properly. I took the trouble in the other thread to go to the site: I saw in the site listed in our page: http://download.java.net/openjdk/testresults/8/ and reproduced in http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.support/50823: > jdk8u60-b12 Passed Failed* Not Run** Error Summary Diff > jdk 4787 18 822 1 5628 7 > hotspot 627 34 13 4 678 2 > langtools 3078 0 0 0 3078 0 > > jdk8u60-b11 Passed Failed* Not Run** Error Summary Diff > jdk 4787 17 819 0 5623 1 > hotspot 625 35 13 5 678 2 > langtools 3078 0 0 0 3078 0 there is a > Note: > 1) * Known Issues > 2) ** Results do not includes test results for awt, swing and 2d. there. Therefore, the tests are useful as are the valgrind tests but not more than that. You have numbers varying from one build to the next, some decreasing, some increasing, about 20 failures, 1000 not run, errors. It is about 10% faults,not a mess, not zero. Talking about recommendation, to make sure it runs properly to avoid adverse security hazard is a completely wrong, false sentence. I don't think think we want to have a demonstrated *wrong* statement in page falsely reassuring users that they are 100% secure. Even if it were not security related, I don't think we want a wrong statement in one page, if we know it is wrong. And all because On 03-05-2015 20:27, Paul Rogers wrote: > I'm not entirely comfortable to present running the test suite as > "optional". I'd be happier if it was presented as one of the > "strongly recommended", such as running the tests on glibc. The > potential for a catastrophic flaw is just a little too great. If he is not comfortable, he runs the test suite and feel happy. All this discussion is based in wrong assumptions by him. And I cannot understand why Pierre let it pass and committed. I am repeating with more detail my opinion of the other thread and other post. Bottom line: wrong it is wrong! This is my last post discussing this subject. I get more tired in unfair discussions in these lists, than editing the book. -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
