Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> schrieb am Di., 22. Aug. 2023, 09:33:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:14:54 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <and...@openjdk.org> > wrote: > > > GHA regularly breaks because we specify a very explicit GCC version, > even down to the release versioning of the Ubuntu package. In just this > last week, it has caused issues with the testing of PRs on 11u ( > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk11u-dev/pull/2084) and 17u ( > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk17u-dev/pull/1672) > > > > Rather than bumping this yet again like [JDK-8313428]( > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8313428), this PR suggests dropping > the specific version as we did some time ago in 8u and have now done in 11u > (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk11u-dev/pull/2087). The requirement still > specifies a specific major version of GCC. It just means the dependency > isn't broken every time Ubuntu bumps to a new minor release or even just > makes a minor change to the package alone. > > > > Note that the current setup does not guarantee sticking with an exact > version of GCC anyway, because - as seen by recent GHA breakage - older > versions get removed from the package repository. All we get from this > exact version requirement is sporadic breakage of testing and developer > time wasted fixing & reviewing (and, in the case of backport trees, > approving). If we truly want a static version of GCC, we need to provide > our own - or maybe even a full devkit - as we do with the JDK. > > This looks okay. > > That said, it is rather unnatural to forward-port the patches. Next time, > I would like to see a clean mainline RFE, which would then be cleanly > backported to each of the JDK updates trees. > I think this is kind of an exceptional case because we were in a hurry to fix the 11u-dev GHA in order to push the fix for the ZIP64 issue introduced by the last security update. > ------------- > > Marked as reviewed by shade (Reviewer). > > PR Review: > https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15374#pullrequestreview-1588655871 >
