freeze exception for cacao-oj6

* Luk Claes:

> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> proposing a freeze exception for cacao-oj6 for testing. cacao-oj6 is a
>> copy of the openjdk-6 package with the cacao sources
>> included. Compared to openjdk-6 on architectures without the Hotspot
>> JIT support, cacao-oj6 (including a JIT) is a much faster JVM on the
>> architectures where it does build (powerpc, s390, armel for
>> now). Discussed this at Debconf with some people. I was told to get
>> agreement with debian-security about the maintainability (because of
>> the duplicate sources). See #495256 as well.
>
> What was the conclusion of the discussion with the Security Team?

I don't recall a discussion. Anyway, I want to see a -2 first, to see
if it can actually be auto-built on all release architectures, and what
the timings are.

A security update for the OpenJDK 6 source base will require more than
60 hours of armel build time, and more than two weeks[1] on sparc for
openjdk-6 alone (don't know cocoa-oj6 yet). Anything longer than half a
day is very difficult for us.

[1] Estimate based on a built time of 205 hours on lebrun, which has got
a 750 MHz CPU. spontini is a U60, which is probably only half as
fast.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:43:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> A security update for the OpenJDK 6 source base will require more than
> 60 hours of armel build time, and more than two weeks[1] on sparc for
> openjdk-6 alone (don't know cocoa-oj6 yet).

The fastjar changes are aimed to decrease this build times for
openjdk-6. cocoa-oj6 is AFAIK for arches where cocoa have a JIT but
openjdk not (s390, powerpc, arm*).

> Anything longer than half a
> day is very difficult for us.
> [1] Estimate based on a built time of 205 hours on lebrun, which has got
> a 750 MHz CPU. spontini is a U60, which is probably only half as
> fast.

Well, you know that there is a T2000 available and if the security team
needs a faster buildd they have to ask.

Bastian

--
The heart is not a logical organ.
-- Dr. Janet Wallace, "The Deadly Years", stardate 3479.4


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Florian Weimer writes:
> * Luk Claes:
>
> > Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> proposing a freeze exception for cacao-oj6 for testing. cacao-oj6 is a
> >> copy of the openjdk-6 package with the cacao sources
> >> included. Compared to openjdk-6 on architectures without the Hotspot
> >> JIT support, cacao-oj6 (including a JIT) is a much faster JVM on the
> >> architectures where it does build (powerpc, s390, armel for
> >> now). Discussed this at Debconf with some people. I was told to get
> >> agreement with debian-security about the maintainability (because of
> >> the duplicate sources). See #495256 as well.
> >
> > What was the conclusion of the discussion with the Security Team?
>
> I don't recall a discussion.

No, this was at Debconf; I had the impression that somebody from the
security team was sitting around as well.

> Anyway, I want to see a -2 first, to see if it can actually be
> auto-built on all release architectures, and what the timings are.

Trying to do that (although I wouldn't mind if somebody else could do
that; still travelling with bad network connectivity).

Matthias


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:43:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > A security update for the OpenJDK 6 source base will require more than
> > 60 hours of armel build time, and more than two weeks[1] on sparc for
> > openjdk-6 alone (don't know cocoa-oj6 yet).
>
> The fastjar changes are aimed to decrease this build times for
> openjdk-6. cocoa-oj6 is AFAIK for arches where cocoa have a JIT but
> openjdk not (s390, powerpc, arm*).

cocoa-oj6 already build-depends against the new fastjar, so build
times won't improve. the slowest architecture is armel, the package is
only built on armel, s390, powerpc, i386 and amd64. 32bit sparc is not
supported by cacao in the current form as distributed by upstream.

> > Anything longer than half a
> > day is very difficult for us.
> > [1] Estimate based on a built time of 205 hours on lebrun, which has got
> > a 750 MHz CPU. spontini is a U60, which is probably only half as
> > fast.
>
> Well, you know that there is a T2000 available and if the security team
> needs a faster buildd they have to ask.

the estimate is wrong. the openjdk-6 package runs the testsuite. if
the security team prefers shorter build times, then the testuite can
be disabled in security uploads. the testsuite is not run in the
cacao-oj6 package.

if the security team has the opportunity to use a faster machine,
please consider using it.

Matthias


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

* Matthias Klose:

>> Well, you know that there is a T2000 available and if the security team
>> needs a faster buildd they have to ask.
>
> the estimate is wrong.

I what sense? I quoted the actual build time on lebrun. Is spontini
really faster than that?

> the openjdk-6 package runs the testsuite. if the security team prefers
> shorter build times, then the testuite can be disabled in security
> uploads.

Uhm, okay.

> the testsuite is not run in the cacao-oj6 package.

And build times are reasonably fast.

> if the security team has the opportunity to use a faster machine,
> please consider using it.

The security team doesn't run wanna-build for the security buildd
network, or the security buildds themselves. We prefer stable *and*
reasonably fast buildds, of course. But we aren't involved in their
operation.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Florian Weimer writes:
> > the openjdk-6 package runs the testsuite. if the security team prefers
> > shorter build times, then the testuite can be disabled in security
> > uploads.
>
> Uhm, okay.

I didn't change this in the -2 upload.

> > the testsuite is not run in the cacao-oj6 package.
>
> And build times are reasonably fast.

unfortunately the -2 build did fail on s390 and armel.

- s390: rebuilt by hand on raptor/unstable without problems.
Bastian pointed to #479952 as a possible reason. would it
be possible to do a test-rebuild on the machine which is
used security updates?

- armel: failed to build on ALL6500; asking the buildd admins to
restart a build on argento (where the build did succeed before).

Matthias


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

* Matthias Klose:

> - s390: rebuilt by hand on raptor/unstable without problems.
> Bastian pointed to #479952 as a possible reason. would it
> be possible to do a test-rebuild on the machine which is
> used security updates?

I think we can apply a real security patch to all the Sun-based JDKs and
see how it works out. I'll ask the (testing) security team about it.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 11:16:02PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - s390: rebuilt by hand on raptor/unstable without problems.
> Bastian pointed to #479952 as a possible reason. would it
> be possible to do a test-rebuild on the machine which is
> used security updates?

Works according to the build log.

Bastian

--
Without followers, evil cannot spread.
-- Spock, "And The Children Shall Lead", stardate 5029.5


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

* Matthias Klose:

> unfortunately the -2 build did fail on s390 and armel.
>
> - s390: rebuilt by hand on raptor/unstable without problems.
> Bastian pointed to #479952 as a possible reason. would it
> be possible to do a test-rebuild on the machine which is
> used security updates?

I'm doing that now for openjdk-6 and cocoa-oj6.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org