On 07/03/2012 01:17 PM, alex lupu wrote:
> I understand this is a confusing subject for the layman
> (and the preamble of OpenJDK-1.7.0.5 build instructions only
> helps to emphasize this)
> so not surprisingly, I have a few questions:
>
> 1. If one chooses a "Binary Installation" of OpenJDK,
> what's the difference (technical and legal) from installing
> the Oracle's "jdk-7u5-linux-i586.tar.gz" (~79MB) directly?
>
Legal: You don't get to use the coffee cup logo.
Technical: The Oracle build is statically linked.
Moral: The plugin and javaws is closed source. Personally, I prefer not
to use closed software, but to each his own.
> 1.1. I understand that for the BLFS option one has to install
> "IcedTea-Web" as well (to get the plugin) but that's a minor
> issue IMHO (i.e., you live by BLFS, you die by BLFS :).
>
> BTW, inserting the word "both" somewhere in the sentence
> "The browser plugin and webstart implementation have been
> split off into a separate project."
> might help the neophyte (again, IMHO).
>
It is an odd case. In either seemingly appropriate location, it provides
little bennefit to the reader, and actually sounds a little strange when
read aloud. It could also be that since I wrote it...but together, they
are one package (going a little deeper, the plug-in is actually a
library and provides all of the functionality to javaws).
Short of a grammatical error, I'm inclined to disagree. I haven't found
anything on the OWL to give advice either way. That doesn't mean that
there isn't a rule someplace, I just didn't look for very long.
> I see a relative size difference between the "BLFS option" (OpenJDK)
> and Oracle (JDK). Most OpenJDK file sizes are larger. For example,
>
> 5654 jdk1.7.0_05/bin/java
> 8792 OpenJDK-1.7.0.5-bin/bin/java
>
My binary OpenJDK builds are not stripped. On x86_64, original size is
10,957, stripped it is 4904. The larger size of the stripped Oracle
binary likely owing again to static linking (different strip options are
also a possibility).
> 144272 jdk1.7.0_05/jre/lib/i386/libnpjp2.so
> 1337442 OpenJDK/jre/lib/IcedTeaPlugin.so
>
IcedTea plugin is a completely new implementation and contains most of
the functionality of javaws as well, and again, it is not stripped.
> but (as an exception to the rule),
>
> 79688 jdk1.7.0_05/jre/bin/javaws
> 1116 OpenJDK-1.7.0.5-bin/jre/bin/javaws
See above.
>
> 1.1. Has the OpenJDK software been reverse-engineered?
No, most of it is actually provided by Oracle. There are a few remaining
parts of the proprietary JDK that are not open sourced as those parts
are under license from another entity. Audio/MIDI libs, the plugin, and
web-start are a few examples (they are actually the only ones left IIRC).
> 1.2. Is it fully equivalent or does it even provide extra functionality?
>
It should be fully compatible, but you can't say that or use the coffee
cup logo. :-) Other distros use the same code and similar build method,
and do test against the TCK regularly to claim compatibility.
> 2.1. In the OpenJDK text:
> Where is "PATH_HOLD" in
> export PATH_HOLD="${PATH}"
> used?
>
You found an error. Old instruction that didn't get removed with the
latest two updates. :-)
> 2.2 Where is the<arch> in
> ln -s ${JAVA_HOME}/jre/lib/<arch>/IcedTeaPlugin.so ?
>
> On my "IcedTea-Web" build (i686-pc-linux-gnu),
> the plugin shows up in
> OpenJDK-1.7.0.5-bin/jre/lib/
>
> Note: there _is_ an OpenJDK-1.7.0.5-bin/jre/lib/i386/
> subdirectory though, but with some other stuff in it.
>
And another bug. It appears to have changed, but the book was not
corrected with update. I'll tend to both errors shortly.
Good questions and observations. Thanks!
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
