Hi Andrew, > > > One dummy question: > > > Why do we need to specify the real package name here? > > > If we install gcc-10, I think apt system will pick up the latest gcc-10 > > > for us. > > > > IIRC the intent is to keep control over the gcc version and not > > randomly update whenever the distro updates. Upgrading compiler > > versions for the OpenJDK is actually a very involved process when done > > properly and we often find code changes need to be made, or warnings > > adjusted, when a new version of the compiler is to be used. This > > approach forces us to check the new version is okay before switching > > over to it. At least that is the theory. :) > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > > > I'm in complete agreement with you as regards major versions of GCC. Fedora's > eager adoption of them means we often encounter these early. JDK-8282231 is > just the latest example from the introduction of GCC 12. > > However, the GHA workflow in OpenJDK doesn't just depend on a major > version of GCC - which is actually contained in the Ubuntu package name of > gcc-9 or gcc-10 itself - but the full revision number, even down to local > packaging changes. > > I believe this is overkill and leads to valuable time being wasted on issues > like > JDK-8283778 where the GCC version itself didn't even change at all, just the > Ubuntu version suffix. > > Having just encountered this with 8u, I've filed JDK-8284772 there to just use > the package name, which includes the major GCC version. That's already how it > is depending on the x86_32 GCC, which hasn't suffered broken dependencies in > the same way as x86_64. > > I have yet to see an issue be specific to a minor GCC version bump, whereas > the > current setup is pretty much guaranteed to mean further fixes to the GitHub > workflow every time the Ubuntu packager produces a new build. > > I'm happy to submit the change for other JDK versions if there is interest, > but I > at least don't want to be encountering this in maintaining 8u (and certainly > not > having to add fixes to a release branch in rampdown, as happened recently > with 11u)
I'm in full agreement with you and can't see any reason for but just additional trouble with hard maintenance of the GCC version suffix. I would love to see JDK-8284772 be done in head and backported to all active update releases. I had the same idea when doing JDK-8283778. Best regards Christoph
