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