Looks like a good addition to me. Is there a way to ensure that binary file verification is exhaustively applied? ie. that every DLL or .so in a distribution has been checked?
Mike On Jan 4 2011, at 12:00 , [email protected] wrote: > Send build-dev mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/build-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of build-dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Fwd: Re: hotspot build problems (Per Bothner) > 2. Need Reviewer: binary_file_verification (Kelly O'Hair) > 3. Re: A More FHS-Compliant JDK Install (Andrew Haley) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:42:41 -0800 > From: Per Bothner <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: hotspot build problems > To: HotSpot Open Source Developers <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > There were some recent changes to make/linux/makefiles/launcher.make, > so my patch no longer applies. Here is an updated patch. > > I've verified that the patch is still needed (on Fedora 14 with > SELinux enabled), and that it is "complete", in the sense that > top-level make clean && make completes successfully. > -- > --Per Bothner > [email protected] [email protected] http://per.bothner.com/ > -------------- next part -------------- > An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... > Name: chcon-launcher2.patch > Url: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/attachments/20110103/0fff6ade/attachment-0001.ksh > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:01:15 -0800 > From: "Kelly O'Hair" <[email protected]> > Subject: Need Reviewer: binary_file_verification > To: build-dev <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Need reviewer: Misc fixes related to binary file checks > > This started out as fixing a rebase bug but we also needed to verify > that our libraries were > built properly, so the binary_file_verification define was created to > do this. > The checks are not nailed down yet, but I need to get the calls to the > binary_file_verification > define in place first. > > Initially the plan was to do this check when the j2sdk-image was > created, but it seemed to make > sense to verify the binaries where they are created and as they get > imported in so we can catch > problem binaries as soon as possible. > > 6413588: Add 'ldd -r' and 'dump -Lv' checks to all .so files delivered > in the JDK > 6975326: Problem in install/make/rebase/Makefile, grep on empty pattern > 7000995: Add check in makefiles to verify that msvcp100.dll is NOT used > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ohair/openjdk7/jdk7-build-binary_file_verification/webrev/ > > On Windows we currently want to make sure the DLL can have a Dynamic > base, and that it > is NX compatible (DEP). > On Solaris and Linux, there is mostly just runs of ldd, nm, and dump/ > readobj, the specific > things we want to check for may take a little more time to nail down. > This binary_file_verification also provides some details in the build > log with regards > to the library dependencies, which may be of use someday in tracking > down dependency issues. > > -kto > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/attachments/20110103/fc7f8b1c/attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:48:40 +0000 > From: Andrew Haley <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: A More FHS-Compliant JDK Install > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 01/03/2011 03:09 AM, Lussier, Denis wrote: >> I too like the idea that the version of OpenJDK that comes pre-built with >> your Linux distro is pre-installed and just works. But... I wonder how/if >> the Linux Distro's will configure simultaneously with JDK6& JDK7 when they >> are both mainstream. > > Hopefully, the usual Java backwards compatibility will be maintained, > so mostly it won't matter. However, the packages may be installed > side-by-side, with a symlink for the global default. Like this example > from Fedora 13: > > /usr/bin/java --> > /etc/alternatives/java --> > /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0.x86_64/jre/bin/java > > I can't yet comment on whether distros will choose to allow multiple > JDKs, though: just that there is no strong technical reason that > forbids it. > > Andrew. > > > End of build-dev Digest, Vol 45, Issue 4 > ****************************************
