Bug#897945: [Openjdk] Bug#920037: Bug#897945: #897945 still present/breaks with Java 8

2019-02-05 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 05/02/2019 à 15:05, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit :

> The real issue is lombok, it needs both Java 8 and 11 to build (and even
> 6 and 7! But we managed do to without that).

Erratum: I've just figured out how to build lombok with Java 11 only.
Once ivyplusplus is taught about the new javac 'release' option it's
easy. Uploads will follow soon.

Emmanuel Bourg



Bug#897945: [Openjdk] Bug#920037: Bug#897945: #897945 still present/breaks with Java 8

2019-02-05 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Hi all,

Le 05/02/2019 à 14:24, Per Lundberg a écrit :

> is this the correct list of packages which can only be built w/ openjdk-8

That's almost correct:
- jzmq and openjfx are built with openjdk-11 already
- openjdk-8-jre-dcevm has just been removed, replaced by
openjdk-11-jre-dcevm (not in testing yet)
- leiningen-clojure is about to be updated with Java 11 compatibility
- uwsgi builds with openjdk-11, but supports openjdk-8 on kfreebsd. The
Java 8 plugin can probably be dropped.
- virtualbox switched to openjdk-11 a few days ago
- icedtea-web should support Java 11 in the next upstream release

The real issue is lombok, it needs both Java 8 and 11 to build (and even
6 and 7! But we managed do to without that). This is a complicated
package that is now a key part of the Java ecosystem in Debian, and we
can't really do without it. It looks like the latest releases have
improved the Java 11 support but I doubt it can build without Java 8.

Note that we'll still need OpenJDK 8 as part of the SBT packaging effort
(which is required to build Scala 2.12). I wouldn't be surprised to see
it required as well to bootstrap Kotlin. So even if we managed to ship
Buster without openjdk-8, the package should remain in unstable until
this is sorted out.

Emmanuel Bourg



Bug#897945: [Openjdk] Bug#920037: Bug#897945: #897945 still present/breaks with Java 8

2019-02-05 Thread Per Lundberg
On 2/4/19 10:07 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:

> What is the specific use case for this, is there some package which
> needs 8 and can't be fixed in time for 11?

Yes, it was stated in this thread earlier that such packages do exist.

Emmanuel/others, is this the correct list of packages which can only be 
built w/ openjdk-8 or am I missing something out? If so, it doesn't seem 
like a huge list and making all of these work on openjdk-11 "could" be 
doable/the release could possibly live without them. (well, ideally not 
of course)

$ grep-dctrl -FBuild-Depends openjdk-8 -sPackage /var/lib/apt/lists/*Sources
Package: virtualbox
Package: icedtea-web
Package: jzmq
Package: leiningen-clojure
Package: libbluray
Package: lombok
Package: openjdk-8
Package: openjdk-8-jre-dcevm
Package: openjdk-8
Package: openjfx
Package: uwsgi

Personally, I still rely on openjdk-8 for my work (because of customer 
environments still using it for at least 3-5 more years), but I can live 
with getting it from an unofficial repository. It's more important to 
provide a smooth user experience for the majority of people, who are 
perhaps not _developers_ of Java-based software but more _users_ of the 
same.

Best regards,
--
Per


Bug#897945: [Openjdk] Bug#920037: Bug#897945: #897945 still present/breaks with Java 8

2019-02-04 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:04:41PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I would add a NEWS file to OpenJDK 8 and explain the situation and in
> addition create a wrapper around the OpenJDK 8 java command that prints
> out a message and quits. javac shall continue to work because it is
> needed to build some packages. The debconf approach could also work but
> it is a bit more work to implement. Then we also announce it via release
> news. Just some thoughts.

What is the specific use case for this, is there some package which
needs 8 and can't be fixed in time for 11?

If we do keep openjdk-8 after all, could we simply omit the jre binary
packages when building for distrel=buster? That should ensure that noone
uses an unsupported Java (along with a NEWS file maybe) to run Java
applications.

Cheers,
Moritz



Bug#897945: [Openjdk] Bug#920037: Bug#897945: #897945 still present/breaks with Java 8

2019-02-04 Thread Markus Koschany


Am 04.02.19 um 14:56 schrieb Per Lundberg:
> On 2/1/19 11:20 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 01.02.19 10:03, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> 
>>> This is an excellent suggestion. We should file a bug for openjdk-8 to
>>> implement that.
>> please attach the patch.
> 
> Sure, I should be able to write something up. Forbear my ignorance: 
> should I use debconf to show the message or what do you think would be 
> right approach? (I haven't been involved at this level in Debian since I 
> stepped down as package maintainer 15 years ago. :)
> 
> Best regards,
> Per
> 

Hi,

I would add a NEWS file to OpenJDK 8 and explain the situation and in
addition create a wrapper around the OpenJDK 8 java command that prints
out a message and quits. javac shall continue to work because it is
needed to build some packages. The debconf approach could also work but
it is a bit more work to implement. Then we also announce it via release
news. Just some thoughts.

Best,

Markus



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Bug#897945: [Openjdk] Bug#920037: Bug#897945: #897945 still present/breaks with Java 8

2019-02-04 Thread Per Lundberg
On 2/1/19 11:20 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 01.02.19 10:03, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

>> This is an excellent suggestion. We should file a bug for openjdk-8 to
>> implement that.
> please attach the patch.

Sure, I should be able to write something up. Forbear my ignorance: 
should I use debconf to show the message or what do you think would be 
right approach? (I haven't been involved at this level in Debian since I 
stepped down as package maintainer 15 years ago. :)

Best regards,
Per


Bug#897945: [Openjdk] Bug#920037: Bug#897945: #897945 still present/breaks with Java 8

2019-02-01 Thread Matthias Klose
On 01.02.19 10:03, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 01/02/2019 à 09:17, Per Lundberg a écrit :
> 
>> I think that risk is significant. If we go that route, I would suggest a 
>> postinst/debhelper message saying that "OpenJDK 8 is included but 
>> unsupported. Many packages will not work with it. Use at your own risk." 
>> or something similar.
> 
> This is an excellent suggestion. We should file a bug for openjdk-8 to
> implement that.

please attach the patch.