Zlib level in JDK7

Dr Andrew John Hughes gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Tue Feb 22 23:51:17 UTC 2011

On 22 February 2011 17:26, Phil Race <philip.race at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/2011 9:39 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> On 15 February 2011 20:23, Phil Race<philip.race at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2011 6:07 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>> Yes, IcedTea uses system libraries for everything bar LCMS, where
>>>> local changes in OpenJDK mean we are still forced to use the in-tree
>>>> version.  There hasn't been any success upstreaming these changes,
>>>> though I haven't looked at LCMS 2.x.
>>>   LittleCMS 1.x  didn't provide the support necessary to pass JCK. So we
>>> talked to
>>>   the LittleCMS maintainer and he added the necessary APIs in 2.0
>>>   JDK 7 has had LittleCMS 2.0 for almost 6 months now and that is
>>> included
>>> without any code
>>>   modifications, so I think it should now be possible to use a system
>>> library, although
>>>   we didn't do the work to actually enable that, so its built into a JDK
>>> library which
>>>   has the littlecms code and the glue code. We need to provide the
>>> ability
>>> to separate these.
>>>   When we pushed LCMS 2.0, I asked for a bug to be filed to remember to
>>> do
>>> this work
>>>   but I can't find it in the database. I'll ask for that to be filed if
>>> it
>>> wasn't already.
>>>   NB It didn't seem super-urgent since we pulled in LCMS 2.0 relatively
>>> soon
>>> after its release
>>>   we thought shipping distros weren't likely to have the library upgrade
>>> anyway, but that's
>>>   probably changing.
>>> -phil.
>> Hi Phil,
>> Thanks for making me aware of this.  I briefly glanced at some for the
>> release notes for LCMS 2 when it was released, and saw something that
>> may support the missing functionality, but never had chance to look in
>> detail.  I've also not had chance to look at OpenJDK 7 recently, so
>> it's great to hear that support has already gone in.  Do you have any
>> idea as to whether this would be safe to backport to OpenJDK 6?  I
>> presume it doesn't alter any public API.
> It ought to be OK. If someone else wants to take on the work that is :-)

Consider it on my TODO list ;-)

>> I've not seen any use of OpenJDK 7 by distros as yet.  We've managed
>> with the other libraries without in-tree support by using local
>> patching.  There's a big libraries patch in IcedTea that would be nice
>> to integrate but it would need considerable work to do optional system
>> linking rather than the current brute force of deleting the in-tree
>> version and always linking.  There's also no TCK for 7 yet, which is I
>> believe what caught many of the issues with missing LCMS support
>> before.
> I don't know how distros would want to present/package the 7 EA builds so
> I'm not
> too surprised they aren't common.
> We believe LCMS 2.0 should pass JCK, but I don't know if a full JCK run
> has been performed against a fully open 7 build since it went in.
> A 6-open backport would find any problems there.

I wasn't aware there was a JCK for 7 yet.  At least, not one under the same
terms as the one used for OpenJDK6.

>> I did a quick survey of distro support for LCMS 2.  It's in Gentoo
>> (which is what made me aware of it), but Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora all
>> seem to still be on the 1.x series.  So it doesn't seem to be changing
>> yet.  Maybe OpenJDK could be the kick they need to support it? ;-)
> yep.
> -phil.

Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK

PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list