My $0.02 I still see a lot of Java 6, so I would suggest using that for builds etc to ensure compatibility with that version.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > If the binaries show class files with major version > 50 (e.g. java 7 = 51, > java 8 = 52), then Java 6 JVMs won't be able to run them. > > A quick check of the classes in the binary: > > $ curl -O > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1021/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz > % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time > Current > Dload Upload Total Spent Left > Speed > 100 14.2M 100 14.2M 0 0 2254k 0 0:00:06 0:00:06 --:--:-- > 2973k > $ tar xzf accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz > $ cd accumulo-1.6.2 > $ for jar in `ls -1 lib/accumulo-*`; do jar xf ${jar}; done > $ for clazz in `find org/apache/accumulo -name *.class`; do javap -verbose > `echo ${clazz} | sed -e 's/\//./g' | sed -e 's/\.class$//' | sed -e > 's/\\$/./g'` | grep "major version:"; done | uniq -c > 5208 major version: 50 > > > So that looks fine. I have seen cases before where using the maven compiler > plugin's -source -target options without the correct rt.jar file resulted > in Java 6 JVM compatible class files that still referenced JRE classes that > weren't available. > > Attempting to compile the source tarball with a Java 6 JDK should cause > that to show up. The nightly build I do outside of ASF infra runs with > JDK6u31 and it succeeded yesterday on the 1.6 dev branch. So as of > commit b2f7e9 on the 1.6 branch we're fine (I did not check yet how rc3 > compares to the 1.6 dev branch). > > (as an aside, I couldn't find us actually documenting anywhere in the user > manual or README what java versions we support.) > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Christopher <[email protected] > <https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > Does it matter that this was built with Java 1.7.0_25? Is that going to > > cause issues running in a 1.6 JRE? > > > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Corey Nolet <[email protected] > > <https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&[email protected]>> > > wrote: > > > > > Devs, > > > > > > Please consider the following candidate for Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 > > > > > > Branch: 1.6.2-rc3 > > > SHA1: 3a6987470c1e5090a2ca159614a80f0fa50393bf > > > Staging Repository: > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1021/ > > > > > > Source tarball: > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1021/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-src.tar.gz > > > Binary tarball: > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1021/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.6.2/accumulo-1.6.2-bin.tar.gz > > > (Append ".sha1", ".md5" or ".asc" to download the signature/hash > for > > a > > > given artifact.) > > > > > > Signing keys available at: > https://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS > > > > > > Over 1.6.1, we have 148 issues resolved: > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=1.6.2-rc3 > > > > > > Testing: All unit, integration and functional tests are passing. > > > > > > API compatibility report for 1.6.1 to 1.6.2: > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~cjnolet/accumulo-1.6.2-rc3/compat_reports/accumulo/1.6.1_to_1.6.2/compat_report.html > > > > > > API backwards compatibility report for 1.6.2 to 1.6.1: > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~cjnolet/accumulo-1.6.2-rc3/compat_reports/accumulo/1.6.2_to_1.6.1/compat_report.html > > > > > > The vote will be open until Saturday, January 31st 12:00AM UTC > (1/30 > > > 8:00PM ET, 1/30 5:00PM PT) > > > > > > > > > -- > Sean > -- *Andrew George Wells* *Software Engineer* *[email protected] <[email protected]>*
