Re: Bug#975016: OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 11/18/20 8:03 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > New OpenJDK versions tend to cause both buildtime and runtime breakages > > in reverse dependencies, some of them hard to resolve and requiring > > updates to new upstream versions which in turn require new dependencies > > that might not even be in Debian. > > New upstream versions likely do that, that's not an attribute of OpenJDK. Which is why new upstream versions _generally_ don’t end up in stable. > What's your point? I think the point is about packages with the JDK in Build-Depends. The JDK has two use cases, one is people using it as JRE or JDK to independently develop software, the other is using it in B-D to build Debian packages (usually via default-jdk-headless). Making 17 available as the latter is certainly a no-go. Maybe that was what Adrian’s point was. I think your point is about making it available as the former, and so that people can test their things with it already, and to allow backporting packages that actually do need it. I think that is a good thing but perhaps bullseye-backports is indeed the better place for it (especially if the copying of binary packages into the suite to bootstrap is possible). I think nobody wants to switch default-jdk to 17 or even not ship 11 at all any more or stop supporting it during bullseye’s lifetime. Maybe that also was too implicit? 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. *
Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
On 11/18/20 8:03 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:20:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> For OpenJDK there are two other possibilities, which would require approval >> by >> release managers / stable release managers. >> >> - openjdk-16 will be released in April 2021, which is expected >>before the bullseye release. Shipping openjdk-16 instead of >>openjdk-15 would have the advantage that you are able to build >>openjdk-17 directly, without having to build openjdk-17 (LTS). >> >>This would require a feature freeze exception for bullseye. >> >> - package a snapshot of openjdk-17 (in April/May 2021), and >>only ship openjdk-17 in bullseye. In that case, update to >>the final openjdk-17 release in Oct 2021 as a stable release >>update, or as a security update. >> >>This would require a feature freeze exception for bullseye. >> >>After the bullseye release, it would require an approval of >>the stable release managers, or approval by the security >>team as a security update. I'm not saying that this package >>should see constant security support, but it is likely >>that openjdk-17 sees extended support upstream. > > New OpenJDK versions tend to cause both buildtime and runtime breakages > in reverse dependencies, some of them hard to resolve and requiring > updates to new upstream versions which in turn require new dependencies > that might not even be in Debian. New upstream versions likely do that, that's not an attribute of OpenJDK. What's your point?
Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:20:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > [removed the Python 2 bits] > > On 11/17/20 11:08 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > Package: debian-security-support > > Severity: normal > > X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@debian.org, t...@security.debian.org > > > openjdk-15 will be included, but not covered by support > > (as it's only needed to bootstrap openjdk-16 and eventually > > openjdk-17, the next LTS release of Java). > > > > How about the following for "security-support-limited"? > > > > > > openjdk-15Only included for bootstrapping later OpenJDK > > releases > > > > > > One important thing: These only applies to Bullseye and > > security-support-limited is currently independent of releases, so this > > needs to be fixed or alternatively we need to stop rebuilding the current > > unstable package for older releases and instead branch of per distro. > > As background: OpenJDK 12 can only be built with 11, 13 with 12, 14 with 13, > 15 > with 14, 16 with 15. Only having 11 in bullseye would make backports more > "interesting". AFAIK open source 3rd party support for OpenJDK 11 is available for the whole non-LTS lifetime of bullseye. This would make it a good option to ship only OpenJDK 11 during the whole lifetime of bullseye. Bootstrapping[1] OpenJDK 17 in bullseye-backports could then provide an additional option for people who need a more recent version. > For OpenJDK there are two other possibilities, which would require approval by > release managers / stable release managers. > > - openjdk-16 will be released in April 2021, which is expected >before the bullseye release. Shipping openjdk-16 instead of >openjdk-15 would have the advantage that you are able to build >openjdk-17 directly, without having to build openjdk-17 (LTS). > >This would require a feature freeze exception for bullseye. > > - package a snapshot of openjdk-17 (in April/May 2021), and >only ship openjdk-17 in bullseye. In that case, update to >the final openjdk-17 release in Oct 2021 as a stable release >update, or as a security update. > >This would require a feature freeze exception for bullseye. > >After the bullseye release, it would require an approval of >the stable release managers, or approval by the security >team as a security update. I'm not saying that this package >should see constant security support, but it is likely >that openjdk-17 sees extended support upstream. New OpenJDK versions tend to cause both buildtime and runtime breakages in reverse dependencies, some of them hard to resolve and requiring updates to new upstream versions which in turn require new dependencies that might not even be in Debian. > Matthias cu Adrian [1] If OpenJDK 17 is in unstable in May, one option might be to upload/move these binaries from unstable to bullseye-backports and then continue from that.
Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
On 11/18/20 7:46 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:20:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> [removed the Python 2 bits] >> >> On 11/17/20 11:08 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >>> Package: debian-security-support >>> Severity: normal >>> X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@debian.org, t...@security.debian.org >> >>> openjdk-15 will be included, but not covered by support >>> (as it's only needed to bootstrap openjdk-16 and eventually >>> openjdk-17, the next LTS release of Java). >>> >>> How about the following for "security-support-limited"? >>> >>> >>> openjdk-15Only included for bootstrapping later OpenJDK >>> releases >>> >>> >>> One important thing: These only applies to Bullseye and >>> security-support-limited is currently independent of releases, so this >>> needs to be fixed or alternatively we need to stop rebuilding the current >>> unstable package for older releases and instead branch of per distro. >> >> As background: OpenJDK 12 can only be built with 11, 13 with 12, 14 with 13, >> 15 >> with 14, 16 with 15. Only having 11 in bullseye would make backports more >> "interesting". >> >> For OpenJDK there are two other possibilities, which would require approval >> by >> release managers / stable release managers. > > If the whole "buildlibs" (or however it gets called in the end) > infrastructure is > ready for bullseye it would also be an option to include > openjdk-15/openjdk-16 in > there? As such, it would be non-available to users by default, but present for > bootstraps. sure, if you don't change it for the sid/unstable packages.
Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:20:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > [removed the Python 2 bits] > > On 11/17/20 11:08 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > Package: debian-security-support > > Severity: normal > > X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@debian.org, t...@security.debian.org > > > openjdk-15 will be included, but not covered by support > > (as it's only needed to bootstrap openjdk-16 and eventually > > openjdk-17, the next LTS release of Java). > > > > How about the following for "security-support-limited"? > > > > > > openjdk-15Only included for bootstrapping later OpenJDK > > releases > > > > > > One important thing: These only applies to Bullseye and > > security-support-limited is currently independent of releases, so this > > needs to be fixed or alternatively we need to stop rebuilding the current > > unstable package for older releases and instead branch of per distro. > > As background: OpenJDK 12 can only be built with 11, 13 with 12, 14 with 13, > 15 > with 14, 16 with 15. Only having 11 in bullseye would make backports more > "interesting". > > For OpenJDK there are two other possibilities, which would require approval by > release managers / stable release managers. If the whole "buildlibs" (or however it gets called in the end) infrastructure is ready for bullseye it would also be an option to include openjdk-15/openjdk-16 in there? As such, it would be non-available to users by default, but present for bootstraps. Cheers, Moritz
Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
clone 975016 -1 tags -1 -moreinfo retitle 975016 OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye retitle -1 Python 2 support state for Bullseye # thanks and sorry for the noise, should have done the split immediatly :) -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
On 11/18/20 1:36 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Matthias Klose: > >> As background: OpenJDK 12 can only be built with 11, 13 with 12, 14 with 13, >> 15 >> with 14, 16 with 15. Only having 11 in bullseye would make backports more >> "interesting". > > All recent OpenJDK releases can be built by themselves, right? yes, forgot to mention that.
Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
control: tags -1 +moreinfo On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:20:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > openjdk-15Only included for bootstrapping later OpenJDK > > releases > > > > > > One important thing: These only applies to Bullseye and > > security-support-limited is currently independent of releases, so this > > needs to be fixed or alternatively we need to stop rebuilding the current > > unstable package for older releases and instead branch of per distro. > > As background: OpenJDK 12 can only be built with 11, 13 with 12, 14 with 13, > 15 > with 14, 16 with 15. Only having 11 in bullseye would make backports more > "interesting". > > For OpenJDK there are two other possibilities, which would require approval by > release managers / stable release managers. [...] -> tagging this bug 'moreinfo' until one of the two options have been decided. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
* Matthias Klose: > As background: OpenJDK 12 can only be built with 11, 13 with 12, 14 with 13, > 15 > with 14, 16 with 15. Only having 11 in bullseye would make backports more > "interesting". All recent OpenJDK releases can be built by themselves, right? That's good enough for backports, I think.
Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye
[removed the Python 2 bits] On 11/17/20 11:08 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Package: debian-security-support > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@debian.org, t...@security.debian.org > openjdk-15 will be included, but not covered by support > (as it's only needed to bootstrap openjdk-16 and eventually > openjdk-17, the next LTS release of Java). > > How about the following for "security-support-limited"? > > > openjdk-15Only included for bootstrapping later OpenJDK > releases > > > One important thing: These only applies to Bullseye and > security-support-limited is currently independent of releases, so this > needs to be fixed or alternatively we need to stop rebuilding the current > unstable package for older releases and instead branch of per distro. As background: OpenJDK 12 can only be built with 11, 13 with 12, 14 with 13, 15 with 14, 16 with 15. Only having 11 in bullseye would make backports more "interesting". For OpenJDK there are two other possibilities, which would require approval by release managers / stable release managers. - openjdk-16 will be released in April 2021, which is expected before the bullseye release. Shipping openjdk-16 instead of openjdk-15 would have the advantage that you are able to build openjdk-17 directly, without having to build openjdk-17 (LTS). This would require a feature freeze exception for bullseye. - package a snapshot of openjdk-17 (in April/May 2021), and only ship openjdk-17 in bullseye. In that case, update to the final openjdk-17 release in Oct 2021 as a stable release update, or as a security update. This would require a feature freeze exception for bullseye. After the bullseye release, it would require an approval of the stable release managers, or approval by the security team as a security update. I'm not saying that this package should see constant security support, but it is likely that openjdk-17 sees extended support upstream. Matthias
Re: Request for team membership [was Please accept merge request for building gkl for non-amd64]
Am Mittwoch, den 18.11.2020, 09:28 +0100 schrieb Michael R. Crusoe: > Thanks for the merge! > > Consider this my request for membership in the Debian Java Team so I don't > have to bother others in the future :-) I have added you to the Java team on salsa. Cheers, Markus signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Request for team membership [was Please accept merge request for building gkl for non-amd64]
Thanks for the merge! Consider this my request for membership in the Debian Java Team so I don't have to bother others in the future :-)
