Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, tony mancill wrote: > Given that the JVM bug can affect any application seems to tilt the > scale towards proceeding with the JDK update, so the release of an > upgrade path for Jenkins is a relief. How about versioning it differently? Make it 11.0.9-2 for a while? Convince upstream to re-release it as 11.0.10 and stop using so many periods in a version number (IMHO one is enough and two is already questionable)? bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg * Mit unserem Consulting bieten wir Unternehmen maßgeschneiderte Angebote in Form von Beratung, Trainings sowie Workshops in den Bereichen Softwaretechnologie, IT Strategie und Architektur, Innovation und Umsetzung sowie Agile Organisation. Besuchen Sie uns auf https://www.tarent.de/consulting . Wir freuen uns auf Ihren Kontakt. *
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:34:25PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 11:28 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > [adding d-java to Cc for greater visibility] > > > > On Mon, 2020-11-30 at 09:21 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 20:23 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > > > I propose that openjdk-11 be updated to upstream 11.0.9.1+1 in > > > > the > > > > upcoming stable point release. This update addresses a > > > > regression > > > > [1] introduced in upstream release 11.0.9+11, which is present in > > > > buster via a security upload [2]. This keeps Debian on par with > > > > other vendors - e.g. RedHat [3], Ubuntu [4], and AdoptOpenJDK [5] > > > > - > > > > and introduces the same upstream version currently available in > > > > testing and unstable. > > > > > > The versioning here appears to cause issues in at least Jenkins - > > > see > > > https://issues.jenkins.io/projects/JENKINS/issues/JENKINS-64212 > > > > Have there been any further issues that people are aware of? > > > > The Jenkins fix is not yet available to most users if I understand > > correctly, so we need to consider the tradeoffs between the > > regression on the OpenJDK side and requiring manual intervention on > > Jenkins installations (and possibly other things confused by the > > version string). > > To tie up a couple of IRC conversations with Moritz, the fixed Jenkins > versions have now been released, so we can probably just tell people > they need to upgrade. I was trying to devise a moral calculus for the trade-off. I haven't been able find any statistics about the prevalence of JVM crashes due to the regression, and so reached out to the folks at AdoptOpenJDK earlier today. They said that they had seen a number of occurrences prior to the patch. Given that the JVM bug can affect any application seems to tilt the scale towards proceeding with the JDK update, so the release of an upgrade path for Jenkins is a relief. Thank you to you and Moritz for your work on this. tony
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 11:28 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > [adding d-java to Cc for greater visibility] > > On Mon, 2020-11-30 at 09:21 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 20:23 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > > I propose that openjdk-11 be updated to upstream 11.0.9.1+1 in > > > the > > > upcoming stable point release. This update addresses a > > > regression > > > [1] introduced in upstream release 11.0.9+11, which is present in > > > buster via a security upload [2]. This keeps Debian on par with > > > other vendors - e.g. RedHat [3], Ubuntu [4], and AdoptOpenJDK [5] > > > - > > > and introduces the same upstream version currently available in > > > testing and unstable. > > > > The versioning here appears to cause issues in at least Jenkins - > > see > > https://issues.jenkins.io/projects/JENKINS/issues/JENKINS-64212 > > Have there been any further issues that people are aware of? > > The Jenkins fix is not yet available to most users if I understand > correctly, so we need to consider the tradeoffs between the > regression on the OpenJDK side and requiring manual intervention on > Jenkins installations (and possibly other things confused by the > version string). To tie up a couple of IRC conversations with Moritz, the fixed Jenkins versions have now been released, so we can probably just tell people they need to upgrade. Regards, Adam
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
[adding d-java to Cc for greater visibility] On Mon, 2020-11-30 at 09:21 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 20:23 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > I propose that openjdk-11 be updated to upstream 11.0.9.1+1 in the > > upcoming stable point release. This update addresses a regression > > [1] introduced in upstream release 11.0.9+11, which is present in > > buster via a security upload [2]. This keeps Debian on par with > > other vendors - e.g. RedHat [3], Ubuntu [4], and AdoptOpenJDK [5] - > > and introduces the same upstream version currently available in > > testing and unstable. > > The versioning here appears to cause issues in at least Jenkins - > see > https://issues.jenkins.io/projects/JENKINS/issues/JENKINS-64212 Have there been any further issues that people are aware of? The Jenkins fix is not yet available to most users if I understand correctly, so we need to consider the tradeoffs between the regression on the OpenJDK side and requiring manual intervention on Jenkins installations (and possibly other things confused by the version string). Regards, Adam
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 20:23 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > I propose that openjdk-11 be updated to upstream 11.0.9.1+1 in the > upcoming stable point release. This update addresses a regression > [1] introduced in upstream release 11.0.9+11, which is present in > buster via a security upload [2]. This keeps Debian on par with > other vendors - e.g. RedHat [3], Ubuntu [4], and AdoptOpenJDK [5] - > and introduces the same upstream version currently available in > testing and unstable. The versioning here appears to cause issues in at least Jenkins - see https://issues.jenkins.io/projects/JENKINS/issues/JENKINS-64212 Regards, Adam
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Sat, 2020-11-28 at 11:07 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 04:56:28PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-11-28 at 08:01 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 05:10:39PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 08:23:45PM -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > > > > -with_check = disabled for this upload > > > > > +# with_check = disabled for this upload > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > FTR, this change increases the build time on zero architectures > > > > by > > > > half a week of running tests. > > > > > > > > E.g. on mipsel-osuosl-01 that is currently building mips64el > > > > this > > > > adds 3 days 23 hours to the buildtime.[1] > > > > > > > > Which is a bit wasteful since failures are ignored and a 3 > > > > digit > > > > number of tests fail on all release architectures. > > [...] > > > Ugh, that is unfortunate. The "with_check" change is there to > > > keep > > > the package as close to the version in testing/unstable as > > > feasible. The only sourceful packaging difference is the build- > > > dep > > > on g++-8 instead of g++-10. > > > > > > Adam expressed concerns about the change as well. Do I need to > > > prepare another upload? > > > > Given that this weekend is the freeze for the point release, that > > might > > be safest, just in case the builds show any issues. It's at least > > not a > > regression from the version currently in buster. > > I assumed that I needed to bump the revision instead of overwriting > deb10u1; debdiff for the deb10u2 source package attached. That's correct. > Let me know if that looks okay and I can proceed with the upload. As this is the second revision, it doesn't need the: + * Rebuild for Buster (Closes: #975728) but if it makes it easier to get the upload sorted more quickly then I also don't mind it being included. Please feel free to upload. Regards, Adam
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 04:56:28PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sat, 2020-11-28 at 08:01 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 05:10:39PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 08:23:45PM -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > > > -with_check = disabled for this upload > > > > +# with_check = disabled for this upload > > > > ... > > > > > > FTR, this change increases the build time on zero architectures by > > > half a week of running tests. > > > > > > E.g. on mipsel-osuosl-01 that is currently building mips64el this > > > adds 3 days 23 hours to the buildtime.[1] > > > > > > Which is a bit wasteful since failures are ignored and a 3 digit > > > number of tests fail on all release architectures. > [...] > > Ugh, that is unfortunate. The "with_check" change is there to keep > > the package as close to the version in testing/unstable as > > feasible. The only sourceful packaging difference is the build-dep > > on g++-8 instead of g++-10. > > > > Adam expressed concerns about the change as well. Do I need to > > prepare another upload? > > Given that this weekend is the freeze for the point release, that might > be safest, just in case the builds show any issues. It's at least not a > regression from the version currently in buster. I assumed that I needed to bump the revision instead of overwriting deb10u1; debdiff for the deb10u2 source package attached. Let me know if that looks okay and I can proceed with the upload. Thank you, tony diff -Nru openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/changelog openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/changelog --- openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/changelog 2020-11-25 08:55:48.0 -0800 +++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/changelog 2020-11-28 09:42:37.0 -0800 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +openjdk-11 (11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u2) buster; urgency=medium + + * Rebuild for Buster (Closes: #975728) + * Disable tests for this upload. + + -- tony mancill Sat, 28 Nov 2020 09:42:37 -0800 + openjdk-11 (11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium * Rebuild for Buster (Closes: #975728) diff -Nru openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/rules openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/rules --- openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/rules 2020-11-05 05:32:42.0 -0800 +++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/rules 2020-11-28 09:42:37.0 -0800 @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ ifneq (,$(filter $(distrel), precise trusty)) with_docs = endif -# with_check = disabled for this upload +with_check = disabled for this upload with_wqy_zenhai = $(if $(filter $(distrel),lenny),,yes) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Sat, 2020-11-28 at 08:01 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 05:10:39PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 08:23:45PM -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > > -with_check = disabled for this upload > > > +# with_check = disabled for this upload > > > ... > > > > FTR, this change increases the build time on zero architectures by > > half a week of running tests. > > > > E.g. on mipsel-osuosl-01 that is currently building mips64el this > > adds 3 days 23 hours to the buildtime.[1] > > > > Which is a bit wasteful since failures are ignored and a 3 digit > > number of tests fail on all release architectures. [...] > Ugh, that is unfortunate. The "with_check" change is there to keep > the package as close to the version in testing/unstable as > feasible. The only sourceful packaging difference is the build-dep > on g++-8 instead of g++-10. > > Adam expressed concerns about the change as well. Do I need to > prepare another upload? Given that this weekend is the freeze for the point release, that might be safest, just in case the builds show any issues. It's at least not a regression from the version currently in buster. Regards, Adam
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 05:10:39PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 08:23:45PM -0800, tony mancill wrote: > >... > > --- openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/changelog 2020-10-22 07:49:15.0 > > -0700 > > +++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/changelog 2020-11-25 08:55:48.0 > > -0800 > > @@ -1,8 +1,16 @@ > > -openjdk-11 (11.0.9+11-1~deb10u1) buster-security; urgency=medium > > +openjdk-11 (11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium > > > > - * Rebuild for Buster > > + * Rebuild for Buster (Closes: #975728) > > > > - -- Moritz Muehlenhoff Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:49:15 + > > + -- tony mancill Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:55:48 -0800 > > + > > +openjdk-11 (11.0.9.1+1-1) unstable; urgency=medium > > + > > + * OpenJDK 11.0.9.1+1 build (release). > > + * Configure --with-jvm-features=shenandoahgc for hotspot builds. > > +LP: #1902029. > > + > > + -- Matthias Klose Thu, 05 Nov 2020 14:32:42 +0100 > > > > openjdk-11 (11.0.9+11-1) unstable; urgency=medium > >... > > --- openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/rules 2020-10-21 10:38:16.0 > > -0700 > > +++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/rules 2020-11-05 05:32:42.0 > > -0800 > > @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ > > ifneq (,$(filter $(distrel), precise trusty)) > >with_docs = > > endif > > -with_check = disabled for this upload > > +# with_check = disabled for this upload > >... > > FTR, this change increases the build time on zero architectures by half > a week of running tests. > > E.g. on mipsel-osuosl-01 that is currently building mips64el this adds > 3 days 23 hours to the buildtime.[1] > > Which is a bit wasteful since failures are ignored and a 3 digit number > of tests fail on all release architectures. > > cu > Adrian > > [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=openjdk-11&arch=mips64el Ugh, that is unfortunate. The "with_check" change is there to keep the package as close to the version in testing/unstable as feasible. The only sourceful packaging difference is the build-dep on g++-8 instead of g++-10. Adam expressed concerns about the change as well. Do I need to prepare another upload? Thank you, tony
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 08:23:45PM -0800, tony mancill wrote: >... > --- openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/changelog 2020-10-22 07:49:15.0 > -0700 > +++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/changelog2020-11-25 08:55:48.0 > -0800 > @@ -1,8 +1,16 @@ > -openjdk-11 (11.0.9+11-1~deb10u1) buster-security; urgency=medium > +openjdk-11 (11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium > > - * Rebuild for Buster > + * Rebuild for Buster (Closes: #975728) > > - -- Moritz Muehlenhoff Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:49:15 + > + -- tony mancill Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:55:48 -0800 > + > +openjdk-11 (11.0.9.1+1-1) unstable; urgency=medium > + > + * OpenJDK 11.0.9.1+1 build (release). > + * Configure --with-jvm-features=shenandoahgc for hotspot builds. > +LP: #1902029. > + > + -- Matthias Klose Thu, 05 Nov 2020 14:32:42 +0100 > > openjdk-11 (11.0.9+11-1) unstable; urgency=medium >... > --- openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/rules 2020-10-21 10:38:16.0 -0700 > +++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/rules2020-11-05 05:32:42.0 > -0800 > @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ > ifneq (,$(filter $(distrel), precise trusty)) >with_docs = > endif > -with_check = disabled for this upload > +# with_check = disabled for this upload >... FTR, this change increases the build time on zero architectures by half a week of running tests. E.g. on mipsel-osuosl-01 that is currently building mips64el this adds 3 days 23 hours to the buildtime.[1] Which is a bit wasteful since failures are ignored and a 3 digit number of tests fail on all release architectures. cu Adrian [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=openjdk-11&arch=mips64el
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Thu, 2020-11-26 at 07:32 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > Does the confirmed tag indicate that I should proceed with a source > upload? Yes, please feel free to. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Regards, Adam
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 08:07:47AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + confirmed > > On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 20:23 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > I propose that openjdk-11 be updated to upstream 11.0.9.1+1 in the > > upcoming stable point release. This update addresses a regression > > [1] introduced in upstream release 11.0.9+11, which is present in > > buster via a security upload [2]. This keeps Debian on par with > > other vendors - e.g. RedHat [3], Ubuntu [4], and AdoptOpenJDK [5] - > > and introduces the same upstream version currently available in > > testing and unstable. > > > > Without this update, users may encounter crashes during bytecode > > compilation. This this is not an optional component of the JVM, > > there is no work-around and users would have to downgrade to 11.0.8 > > (which has open CVEs). > > > > I have prepared an update and performed basic smoke-testing of the > > resulting binaries. The attached debdiff is based on the version > > uploaded by Moritz Mühlenhoff for the DSA, 11.0.9+11-1~deb10u1. I > > checked with the OpenJDK Maintainers [6], where we agreed that this > > update for the regression wouldn't follow the DSA process. > > I'd have been more inclined to suggest fixing it via a DSA as a > regression if it's going to affect lots of users (even though it's not > a security update), given that's how the issue was introduced in the > first place. I can see Moritz was involved in the discussion though, so > I'm not going to push that too much right now. But this really > shouldn't end up being SRM having to choose between security > regressions or functional regressions for users when the latter were > introduced via a DSA. > > One difference between stable and unstable/testing that might be > relevant here is that stable still has the mips architecture. I have to > be honest that, from previous experiences with OpenJDK updates in > (old)stable, that and the reintroduction of tests being run does > concern me. But fingers crossed it all turns out fine. Hi Adam, Thank you for considering this. An upstream regression introduced via a DSA does seem like it could go both ways (and OpenJDK always seems to be the exception to the rule). Does the confirmed tag indicate that I should proceed with a source upload? Thank you, tony signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 20:23 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > I propose that openjdk-11 be updated to upstream 11.0.9.1+1 in the > upcoming stable point release. This update addresses a regression > [1] introduced in upstream release 11.0.9+11, which is present in > buster via a security upload [2]. This keeps Debian on par with > other vendors - e.g. RedHat [3], Ubuntu [4], and AdoptOpenJDK [5] - > and introduces the same upstream version currently available in > testing and unstable. > > Without this update, users may encounter crashes during bytecode > compilation. This this is not an optional component of the JVM, > there is no work-around and users would have to downgrade to 11.0.8 > (which has open CVEs). > > I have prepared an update and performed basic smoke-testing of the > resulting binaries. The attached debdiff is based on the version > uploaded by Moritz Mühlenhoff for the DSA, 11.0.9+11-1~deb10u1. I > checked with the OpenJDK Maintainers [6], where we agreed that this > update for the regression wouldn't follow the DSA process. I'd have been more inclined to suggest fixing it via a DSA as a regression if it's going to affect lots of users (even though it's not a security update), given that's how the issue was introduced in the first place. I can see Moritz was involved in the discussion though, so I'm not going to push that too much right now. But this really shouldn't end up being SRM having to choose between security regressions or functional regressions for users when the latter were introduced via a DSA. One difference between stable and unstable/testing that might be relevant here is that stable still has the mips architecture. I have to be honest that, from previous experiences with OpenJDK updates in (old)stable, that and the reintroduction of tests being run does concern me. But fingers crossed it all turns out fine. Regards, Adam
Bug#975874: buster-pu: package openjdk-11/11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hello Release Team:
I propose that openjdk-11 be updated to upstream 11.0.9.1+1 in the
upcoming stable point release. This update addresses a regression [1]
introduced in upstream release 11.0.9+11, which is present in buster via
a security upload [2]. This keeps Debian on par with other vendors -
e.g. RedHat [3], Ubuntu [4], and AdoptOpenJDK [5] - and introduces the
same upstream version currently available in testing and unstable.
Without this update, users may encounter crashes during bytecode
compilation. This this is not an optional component of the JVM, there
is no work-around and users would have to downgrade to 11.0.8 (which has
open CVEs).
I have prepared an update and performed basic smoke-testing of the
resulting binaries. The attached debdiff is based on the version
uploaded by Moritz Mühlenhoff for the DSA, 11.0.9+11-1~deb10u1. I
checked with the OpenJDK Maintainers [6], where we agreed that this
update for the regression wouldn't follow the DSA process.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you!
tony
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250861
[2]
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1188653/accepted-openjdk-11-110911-1deb10u1-source-amd64-all-into-proposed-updates-stable-new-proposed-updates/
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895275
[4] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-lts/11.0.9.1+1-0ubuntu1
[5] https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/TSC/issues/185
[6] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2020/11/msg00027.html
diff -Nru openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/changelog
openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/changelog
--- openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/changelog 2020-10-22 07:49:15.0
-0700
+++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/changelog 2020-11-25 08:55:48.0
-0800
@@ -1,8 +1,16 @@
-openjdk-11 (11.0.9+11-1~deb10u1) buster-security; urgency=medium
+openjdk-11 (11.0.9.1+1-1~deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium
- * Rebuild for Buster
+ * Rebuild for Buster (Closes: #975728)
- -- Moritz Muehlenhoff Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:49:15 +
+ -- tony mancill Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:55:48 -0800
+
+openjdk-11 (11.0.9.1+1-1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * OpenJDK 11.0.9.1+1 build (release).
+ * Configure --with-jvm-features=shenandoahgc for hotspot builds.
+LP: #1902029.
+
+ -- Matthias Klose Thu, 05 Nov 2020 14:32:42 +0100
openjdk-11 (11.0.9+11-1) unstable; urgency=medium
diff -Nru openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/control
openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/control
--- openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/control 2020-10-22 07:47:43.0 -0700
+++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/control2020-11-25 08:55:48.0
-0800
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
m4, lsb-release, zip, unzip,
sharutils, gawk, cpio, pkg-config, procps, wdiff, time, fastjar (>=
2:0.96-0ubuntu2),
strip-nondeterminism,
- file,
+ jtreg (>= 4.2-b13-0~) , testng , xvfb , xauth
, xfonts-base , libgl1-mesa-dri [!x32] , xfwm4
, x11-xkb-utils , dbus-x11 ,
autoconf, automake, autotools-dev, ant, ant-optional,
g++-8 ,
openjdk-11-jdk-headless:native | openjdk-10-jdk-headless:native,
diff -Nru openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/rules openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/rules
--- openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/rules 2020-10-21 10:38:16.0 -0700
+++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/rules 2020-11-05 05:32:42.0 -0800
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@
ifneq (,$(filter $(distrel), precise trusty))
with_docs =
endif
-with_check = disabled for this upload
+# with_check = disabled for this upload
with_wqy_zenhai = $(if $(filter $(distrel),lenny),,yes)
@@ -418,8 +418,12 @@
endif
endif
-ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), amd64))
- DEFAULT_CONFIGURE_ARGS += --with-jvm-features=zgc
+ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH),$(hotspot_archs)))
+ ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), amd64))
+jvm_features = zgc
+ endif
+ jvm_features += shenandoahgc
+ DEFAULT_CONFIGURE_ARGS += --with-jvm-features=$(subst
$(SPACE),$(COMMA),$(strip $(jvm_features)))
endif
ifeq ($(distribution),Debian)
@@ -1797,7 +1801,7 @@
is_release = yes
hg_project = jdk11u
-hg_tag = jdk-11.0.9+11
+hg_tag = jdk-11.0.9.1+1
package_version= $(subst jdk-,,$(hg_tag))
ifneq ($(is_release),yes)
package_version := $(subst +,~,$(package_version))
diff -Nru openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/watch openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/watch
--- openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/debian/watch 2019-05-28 05:25:52.0 -0700
+++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/debian/watch 2020-11-05 05:32:42.0 -0800
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
version=4
opts="pagemangle=s{\s*(jdk-11\.[^<\s]*)}{$1}g" \
https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk-updates/jdk11u/tags \
-.*/jdk-(.*).tar.gz
+.*/jdk-([0-9.]*\+[0-9]*).tar.gz
diff -Nru openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/.hg_archival.txt
openjdk-11-11.0.9.1+1/.hg_archival.txt
--- openjdk-11-11.0.9+11/.hg_archival.txt 2020-09-11 09:12:45.0
-0700
+++ openjdk-11-11.0.9.
