On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 03:51:38PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:21:46PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:52:50AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > Great, and there's a bug report #944738 > > > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944738) for > > > openjdk-11; I haven't checked if there are bugs reported against the > > > other two versions. > > > > I'm not able to reproduce the problem with openjdk-15. Perhaps the > > non-determinism has already been addressed upstream? > > Oh, interesting. So the non-determinism problem still exists, and > java.base.jmod contains non-deterministic SHA-256 hashes. But jlink > seems to no longer check whether the hashes match, so the jlink tests > now work. This does seem to be to be a poor resolution to the > (Debian) bug! No idea why they've done this, though.
Thank you for looking into this. That's obviously a short-coming of the test I have been using. > So I suggest that we still use the patch with openjdk-15 to avoid > introducing non-determinism into the build, but this is clearly less > important than on 11 and 14. Makes sense. This will prevent breakage later on if the jlink behavior reverts to checking the hash. I had already prepared the NMU for openjdk-15 - building first without the patch and then with it so I could test with both - so I will go ahead and upload that package today. > > openjdk-13 does have the problem, so we could do another upload, but > > given that it's not an LTS release and 14 is already available and > > patched, do we need to? > > Good question. It's easy to do, and it does fix a bug, so I don't see > a good reason not to do so. Agreed. (I could make a quip about my laptop SSD endurance, which is visibly decreasing, but only about 1% per month.) Seriously, I want to mention that I am willing to help get the NMU changes committed to the OpenJDK team repo if the team is open to that. > > Neither 13 nor 15 have open bugs filed against them for the jlink hash > > issue. > > Indeed, but we can still fix it (and in the changelog say something > like "fixes bug #... for this version of openjdk"). Will do. I was just noting it since you noted it earlier in the bug thread. Thanks, tony
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
