Latest revision as of 16:40, 7 September 2022

Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib

Summary

This is initial step to move JDKs to be more like other JDKs, to build proper transferable images, and to lower certification burden of each binary. Long storyshort, first step in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs

This first step will move, one by one, individual JDKs in F37 to be built --with-stdc++lib=static and against in-tree (bundeld) libraries: --with-zlib="bundled" --with-freetype="bundled" --with-libjpeg="bundled" --with-giflib="bundled" --withlibpng="bundled" --with-lcms="bundled" --with-harfbuzz="bundled"

We already made a heavy testing of the behavior, and user should not face negative experience. Still I'm not sure if this testing can ever be enough, considering all the use-cases we do not know.

non goal

It is not goal to embed any security libraries. JDK is using several security providers, and all are currently loaded dynamically in runtime. Still there is remaining issue with cacerts: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#cacerts

Owner

Name: Jiri Vanek
Email: jvanek@redhat.com

Current status

System or Self contained change? By the changes done, this is Self Contianed Change. However from view of impact, and possible world notification, it is more System Wide Change.
Targeted release: Fedora Linux 38
Last updated: 2022-09-07
devel thread
FESCo issue: #2794
Tracker bug: #2097516
Release notes tracker: #848

Detailed Description

Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs for whole picture

Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Move_JDKs_in_RPMs_to_become_portable for this particular step. I would rather keep the details in the main page then here.

See very valuable thread about the topic: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IR5C3YVVABP6LVCXQL3UY5VZPSYWDAF5/

Feedback

According to short investigations, there are already precedents, where certification is a reason to build once, certificate, and repack.

According to developers, the non-portbale JDK is causing upredicted behavior different from other JDK vendors

According to JDK packagers and testers, there is to much JDKs now, and the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Move_Fedora_JDKs_to_become_single-built.2C_portable.2C_ordinary_JDKs.2C_while_keeping_comfortable.2C_usual_system_integration is the only way out

Benefit to Fedora

Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Motivation for whole picture.

This particualr proposal's main benefit will be that Fedora's JDKs as packed in RPMs will again start to resemble upstream JDKs and other vendors build, and some platfrom specific issues disappear, while JDKs remain same in view of system integration and user expereince

Scope

Proposal owners: push improved version of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-latest-openjdk/pull-request/98#request_diff to all JDKs - one freby one from latest, over 17 to 11 and 8. Once settled down in F37 the backport to F36 is expected.

Other developers: really, nothing. If there will be unexpected impact to other developers, the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs may need rework

Release engineering: #10798

Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)

Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)

Alignment with Objectives:

Upgrade/compatibility impact

The compatibility and upgrade path should remain completely smooth.

How To Test

Install system JDK (java-17-openjdk) and ru your favorite application or development. No regression should be noted.

User Experience

Because of in-tree libraries, minimal image or font rendering differences canbe spotted after very detailed investigations - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Side_effects - still, no of th e https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Known_issues should be hit by this proposal.

Dependencies

No dependent packages should notice the change.

Contingency Plan

Contingency mechanism: Revert the patches and rework https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs
Contingency deadline: before f37 Beta freeze
Blocks release? Unless the java-stack will become completely borked then no.

Documentation

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs

Release Notes

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{admon/important | Comments and Explanations | The page source contains comments providing guidance to fill out each section. They are invisible when viewing this page. To read it, choose the "view source" link.<br/> '''Copy the source to a ''new page'' before making changes!  DO NOT EDIT THIS TEMPLATE FOR YOUR CHANGE PROPOSAL.'''}}
-{{admon/tip | Guidance | For details on how to fill out this form, see the [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_guide/ documentation].}}
 <!-- The actual name of your proposed change page should look something like: Changes/Your_Change_Proposal_Name.  This keeps all change proposals in the same namespace -->
-= Change Proposal Name <!-- The name of your change proposal --> =
+= Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib <!-- The name of your change proposal --> =
-{{Change_Proposal_Banner}}
 == Summary ==
 <!-- A sentence or two summarizing what this change is and what it will do. This information is used for the overall changeset summary page for each release. Note that motivation for the change should be in the Benefit to Fedora section below, and this part should answer the question "What?" rather than "Why?". -->
+This is initial step to move JDKs to be more like other JDKs, to build proper transferable images, and to lower certification burden of each binary. Long storyshort, first step in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs
+This first step will move, one by one, individual JDKs in F37 to be built `--with-stdc++lib=static` and against in-tree (bundeld) libraries:  `--with-zlib="bundled"  --with-freetype="bundled"  --with-libjpeg="bundled"  --with-giflib="bundled"  --withlibpng="bundled"  --with-lcms="bundled"  --with-harfbuzz="bundled" `
+We already made a heavy testing of the behavior, and user should not face negative experience. Still I'm not sure if this testing can ever be enough, considering all the use-cases we do not know.
+== non goal ==
+It is not goal to embed any security libraries. JDK is using several security providers, and all are currently loaded dynamically in runtime. Still  there is remaining issue with cacerts: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#cacerts
 == Owner ==
@@ Line 17: / Line 20: @@
 This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are.
 -->
-* Name: [[User:FASAcountName| Your Name]]
+* Name: [[User:jvanek| Jiri Vanek]]
 <!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. -->
-* Email: <your email address so we can contact you, invite you to meetings, etc. Please provide your Bugzilla email address if it is different from your email in FAS>
+* Email: jvanek@redhat.com
 <!--- UNCOMMENT only for Changes with assigned Shepherd (by FESCo)
 * FESCo shepherd: [[User:FASAccountName| Shehperd name]] <email address>
 -->
 == Current status ==
-[[Category:ChangePageIncomplete]]
+[[Category:ChangeAcceptedF38]]
 <!-- When your change proposal page is completed and ready for review and announcement -->
 <!-- remove Category:ChangePageIncomplete and change it to Category:ChangeReadyForWrangler -->
@@ Line 33: / Line 35: @@
 <!-- Select proper category, default is Self Contained Change -->
-[[Category:SelfContainedChange]]
+<!-- [[Category:SelfContainedChange]] -->
-<!-- [[Category:SystemWideChange]] -->
+[[Category:SystemWideChange]]
+* System or Self contained change?  By the changes done, this is '''Self Contianed Change'''. However from view of impact, and possible world notification, it is more ''System Wide Change''.
-* Targeted release: [[Releases/<number> | Fedora Linux <number> ]]
+* Targeted release: [[Releases/38 | Fedora Linux 38 ]]
 * Last updated: <!-- this is an automatic macro — you don't need to change this line -->  {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY2}}
 <!-- After the change proposal is accepted by FESCo, tracking bug is created in Bugzilla and linked to this page
@@ Line 44: / Line 46: @@
 ON_QA -> change is fully code complete
 -->
-* FESCo issue: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
+* [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IR5C3YVVABP6LVCXQL3UY5VZPSYWDAF5/ devel thread]
-* Tracker bug: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
+* FESCo issue: [https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2794 #2794]
-* Release notes tracker: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
+* Tracker bug: [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097516 #2097516]
+* Release notes tracker: [https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/release-notes/issue/848 #848]
 == Detailed Description ==
 <!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate.  A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. -->
+Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs for whole picture
+Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Move_JDKs_in_RPMs_to_become_portable for this particular step. I would rather keep the details  in the main page then here.
+See very valuable thread about the topic: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IR5C3YVVABP6LVCXQL3UY5VZPSYWDAF5/
 == Feedback ==
 <!-- Summarize the feedback from the community and address why you chose not to accept proposed alternatives. This section is optional for all change proposals but is strongly suggested. Incorporating feedback here as it is raised gives FESCo a clearer view of your proposal and leaves a good record for the future. If you get no feedback, that is useful to note in this section as well. For innovative or possibly controversial ideas, consider collecting feedback before you file the change proposal. -->
+According to short investigations, there are already precedents, where certification is a reason to build once, certificate, and repack.
+According to developers, the non-portbale JDK is  causing upredicted behavior different from other JDK vendors
+According to JDK packagers and testers, there is to much JDKs now, and the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Move_Fedora_JDKs_to_become_single-built.2C_portable.2C_ordinary_JDKs.2C_while_keeping_comfortable.2C_usual_system_integration  is the only way out
 == Benefit to Fedora ==
@@ Line 82: / Line 96: @@
       https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl5.26 (major upgrade to a popular software stack, visible to users of that stack)
 -->
+Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Motivation for whole picture.
+This particualr proposal's main benefit will be that Fedora's JDKs as packed in RPMs will again start to resemble upstream JDKs and other vendors build, and some platfrom specific issues disappear, while JDKs remain same in view of system integration and user expereince
 == Scope ==
-* Proposal owners:
+* Proposal owners: push improved version of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-latest-openjdk/pull-request/98#request_diff to all JDKs - one freby one from latest, over 17 to 11 and 8. Once settled down in F37 the backport to F36 is expected.
 <!-- What work do the feature owners have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
-* Other developers: <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Other developers: really, nothing. If there will be unexpected impact to other developers, the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs may need rework<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
 <!-- What work do other developers have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
-* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue number] <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Release engineering:  [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10798 #10798] <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
 <!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)?  Is a mass rebuild required?  include a link to the releng issue.
 The issue is required to be filed prior to feature submission, to ensure that someone is on board to do any process development work and testing and that all changes make it into the pipeline; a bullet point in a change is not sufficient communication -->
@@ Line 107: / Line 124: @@
 <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+The compatibility and upgrade path should remain completely smooth.
@@ Line 125: / Line 143: @@
 <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+Install system JDK (java-17-openjdk) and ru your favorite application or development. No regression should be noted.
 == User Experience ==
+Because of in-tree  libraries, minimal image or font rendering differences canbe spotted after very detailed investigations - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Side_effects - still, no of th e https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs#Known_issues should be hit by this proposal.
 <!-- If this change proposal is noticeable by users, how will their experiences change as a result?
@@ Line 141: / Line 163: @@
 == Dependencies ==
 <!-- What other packages (RPMs) depend on this package?  Are there changes outside the developers' control on which completion of this change depends?  In other words, completion of another change owned by someone else and might cause you to not be able to finish on time or that you would need to coordinate?  Other upstream projects like the kernel (if this is not a kernel change)? -->
+No dependent packages should notice the change.
 <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
@@ Line 146: / Line 169: @@
 == Contingency Plan ==
 <!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan?  This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration".  Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages).  If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy.  -->
-* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Contingency mechanism: Revert the patches and rework  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs
 <!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place?  This will typically be the beta freeze. -->
-* Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Contingency deadline: before f37 Beta freeze
 <!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? -->
-* Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Blocks release? Unless the java-stack will become completely borked then no.
 == Documentation ==
-<!-- Is there upstream documentation on this change, or notes you have written yourself?  Link to that material here so other interested developers can get involved. -->
+https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs
-<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
-N/A (not a System Wide Change)
 == Release Notes ==

Search

Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic: Difference between revisions