>>
>> Any update? Any thoughts on when you want to merge the f33-java11 side tag 
>> back into rawhide?

done
>>
> 
> BTW There are some packages, e.g. built by ant with no sauce/target level 
> specified at all, that are
> built with Java 11-level bytecode.
> 
> This is bad because if there is a dependent package that requires Java 8 for 
> some reason it won't
> work because the bytecode of one your dependencies is too new and cannot be 
> interpreted by Java 8.
> In these cases
> 
> I am fixing such occurrences in the ```f33-java11``` build target as I 
> encounter them -- just
> something to be aware of in case you see any UnsupportedClassVersionErrors.

Mat, I had come to same conclusion, which had lead me into this:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/javapackages-tools/pull-request/3#comment-50266
 . Please
contriute, or sugest next steps here. I would liek to have it java-packaging 
gudelines change, and
self-contained f33 change, but it may be to late.

I see yo already track the Fabio's to-high bytecode issue,  but my proposal is 
to prevent it in
future. However, it do not seem to be facing to much sympathies.


J.



-- 
Jiri Vanek
Senior QE engineer, OpenJDK QE lead, Mgr.
Red Hat Czech
jva...@redhat.com    M: +420775390109
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to