Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1022161 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bill Zaumen <bill.zaumen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-20 07:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-09-28 05:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 26 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Bill Zaumen <bill.zaumen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-20 07:10 +0200
Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-17 20:10 +0200
Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-18 12:20 +0200
Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-18 12:30 +0200
Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-18 16:20 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Tiago Daitx <tiago.daitx@canonical.com> - 2020-09-18 18:20 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-18 18:30 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-21 07:10 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-21 11:10 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-21 16:10 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-21 22:30 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-22 08:00 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-22 11:10 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-22 16:20 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-23 14:50 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-23 20:20 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-23 22:00 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-24 06:00 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-24 12:00 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-25 02:30 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-25 17:00 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-25 17:20 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2020-09-25 18:30 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2020-09-25 18:50 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2020-09-25 18:50 +0200
Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2020-09-28 05:30 +0200
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-25 17:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base |
| Message-ID | <ASXmy-1b6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1026336 |
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. 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. > 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. > 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"). Best wishes, Julian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-25 17:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base |
| Message-ID | <ASXFT-1x7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1026398 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-25 18:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base |
| Message-ID | <ASYLE-296-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1026400 |
* tony mancill:
> 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.
There's also an upstream change to honor SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH:
commit 1a16a4b62829e54a4af5446ef15b981212a70718
Author: Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse@openjdk.org>
Date: Thu May 7 17:47:11 2020 +0200
8244592: Start supporting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
Reviewed-by: erikj
It requires configuring with --with-source-date, I think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-25 18:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base |
| Message-ID | <ASZ4Z-2fw-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1026406 |
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 06:22:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * tony mancill: > > > 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. > > There's also an upstream change to honor SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH: > > commit 1a16a4b62829e54a4af5446ef15b981212a70718 > Author: Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse@openjdk.org> > Date: Thu May 7 17:47:11 2020 +0200 > > 8244592: Start supporting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH > > Reviewed-by: erikj > > It requires configuring with --with-source-date, I think. Oh, interesting. That could be very helpful for this. But we would have to be careful, as dh_strip_nondeterminism replaces timestamps with the date in the most recent debian/changelog entry, so we might have to exclude the relevant files from the dh_... invocation. Best wishes, Julian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-25 18:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base |
| Message-ID | <ASZ4Z-2fw-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1026411 |
* Julian Gilbey: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 06:22:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * tony mancill: >> >> > 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. >> >> There's also an upstream change to honor SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH: >> >> commit 1a16a4b62829e54a4af5446ef15b981212a70718 >> Author: Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse@openjdk.org> >> Date: Thu May 7 17:47:11 2020 +0200 >> >> 8244592: Start supporting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH >> >> Reviewed-by: erikj >> >> It requires configuring with --with-source-date, I think. > > Oh, interesting. That could be very helpful for this. But we would > have to be careful, as dh_strip_nondeterminism replaces timestamps > with the date in the most recent debian/changelog entry, so we might > have to exclude the relevant files from the dh_... invocation. Maybe setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to the same date will work?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-28 05:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base |
| Message-ID | <ATS1s-1zM-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1026398 |
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 03:51:38PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > 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. > > > 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"). I have uploaded an NMU for openjdk-13 and will take a look at reworking the openjdk-15 patch as per the discussion in this bug report.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist
csiph-web