I have always seen those packages as a convenience and never anything that was to read into any supportability - especially given that they don't (didn't) set dependencies correctly and install files to completely inappropriate locations. (there is a linux FHS for a reason).
So given that, my answer would be I don't care if CentOS 5 doesn't have a JDK8 in its distribution packages as there is an RPM from Oracle if people insist on doing it this way (which actually leads to a buggy Jenkins install which miss-behaves in ways users don't expect!). On top of that the OpenJDK version 6 which ships with some OS'es that may currently be used is buggy as hell, so anyone that uses that is just asking for trouble at present. /James On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 10:58:07 UTC, Daniel Beck wrote: > > How's availability of Java 8 (and preferably JDK 8 for the tools) on the > default package repos of the various platforms we have native packages for? > > On 24.03.2015, at 11:52, Stephen Connolly <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > Well jumping from Java 6 to Java 8 is a big jump. My point is that we > probably can strongly argue to jump to Java 7 today... then in a few months > (say 3 months after Java 7 is EOL... to allow for an LTS that supports Java > 7 but not Java 6) then we bump up to Java 8 > > > > On 24 March 2015 at 10:41, nicolas de loof <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > As said when I opened this topic, I can't see major benefit in requiring > Java 7 from a developer point of view (some syntactic sugar, few new API, > what else ?), compared to huge benefit of Java 8 to review API design and > extensibility > > > > 2015-03-24 11:36 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly <[email protected] > <javascript:>>: > > I think we could start looking at requiring Java 7 as a minimum for > Runtime of Jenkins... given that Maven 3.3.1 has moved its minimum runtime > to Java 7... if we want to bump the evil plugin version to use the Maven > 3.3.1 embedded jars we will have to bump Jenkins to require Java 7 as a > minimum... never mind that Java 7 goes EOL next month > > > > On 24 March 2015 at 10:33, James Nord <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > Rejoice! IBM AIX and z/OS now have a GA Java8 version. > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21696670 > > > > Is it time to revisit this once more? > > > > /James > > > > > > On Thursday, 25 September 2014 16:20:35 UTC+1, Jesse Glick wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Mark Waite <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I added a new test to the git client plugin which depended on a Java 7 > NIO > > > feature. It failed to compile in my test configuration with Java 6. > > > > I think it is fine to require Java 7 in tests; there was already a > > proposal which met with no controversy to require 7 for building > > plugins, while continuing to use -target 6 and Animal Sniffer to > > prevent accidental use of 7+ APIs or bytecode (*). Requiring 8 for > > building plugins, and thus allowing -source 8 features in > > src/test/java/**/*.java (**), would be a natural next step, a bit > > controversial but much less so than requiring 8 for running Jenkins > > itself. > > > > > > (*) Of course this means functional tests do not find runtime problems > > occurring on 6 despite lack of linkage errors. But the alternative of > > running tests on 6 just means the reverse problem, that behavioral > > changes in 7 which break the plugin are not caught; and this is worse, > > since many more people will really be running on 7. > > > > (**) The upcoming version of Animal Sniffer allows you to skip checks > > on test-scope dependencies. But it might not yet allow checks to be > > skipped on src/test/java/**/*.java, which is not a dependency; will > > need to look into it. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/c7fd3bd4-26f6-488f-a4bc-52bbf0a8dbad%40googlegroups.com. > > > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMy1JAFugQHay92Uj1WA%3DZF_uBOQcWQ%3DYWjKa0bJLm9n2w%40mail.gmail.com. > > > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANMVJznmy08LYOn0VPMg%2Bkef84LCP72NhJakbKKKeqfiXD3DSw%40mail.gmail.com. > > > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMwg-0TN7vSNf3o26X3%2BQTM4S2e90siEqQJPku78JUBokw%40mail.gmail.com. > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/776fe253-c461-4b6f-ba37-a09137d664c4%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
