On 20/09/2018 09.13, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> On 9/19/18 11:50 AM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
>> (One *hopes* that the trend will become that only the LTS-labeled
>> versions will be used for actually releasing stuff to the world, but
>> that the intermediate versions will be more seen
On 9/19/18 11:50 AM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> In the specific case of Java 8 (LTS by AdoptOpenJDK) -> Java 11 (LTS by
> AdoptOpenJDK), I suspect that there will be a hard requirement for most
> Java developers to have support for both simultaneously on their
> development machines because of the
On 19/09/2018 17.00, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
> On 9/19/18, ProgAndy wrote:
>
>> There are LTS releases planned by AdoptOpenJDK, though. For now, Java 8
>> and Java 11 are declared as supported until at least 2022 [1]. These
>> versions may be of interest for Arch Linux.
>
> I'm
On 9/19/18, ProgAndy wrote:
> There are LTS releases planned by AdoptOpenJDK, though. For now, Java 8
> and Java 11 are declared as supported until at least 2022 [1]. These
> versions may be of interest for Arch Linux.
I'm not a Java developer anymore and probably unaware of new stuff,
and what
Am 19.09.18 um 13:41 schrieb Olli:
> On 19.09.18 10:41, Leandro Papi via arch-general wrote:
>> The fact that Java 10 replaces Java 9 is a call made by Oracle, as
>> described in their roadmap
>> (https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html)
>> [...]Java SE 9 was a non‑LTS
On 19.09.18 10:41, Leandro Papi via arch-general wrote:
> The fact that Java 10 replaces Java 9 is a call made by Oracle, as
> described in their roadmap
> (https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html)
> [...]Java SE 9 was a non‑LTS release and immediately superseded by
> Java
If I may pitch in with my 2 cents,
The fact that Java 10 replaces Java 9 is a call made by Oracle, as
described in their roadmap
(https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html)
[...]Java SE 9 was a non‑LTS release and immediately superseded by
Java SE 10 (also non‑LTS), Java SE
On 9/17/18 12:26 PM, ProgAndy wrote:
> This might be a use case for remakepkg to remove the replaces-entry in
> the java10 packages.
>
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1771005
The package in the sync database, which is a different database record
than the package in the local
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 18:26:04 +0200, ProgAndy wrote:
> This might be a use case for remakepkg to remove the replaces-entry in
> the java10 packages.
>
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1771005
*sees people mentioning that tool in serious discussions*
*slightly panicks*
I see that
On 9/17/18, ProgAndy wrote:
> Am 18.09.18 um 00:23 schrieb Carsten Mattner via arch-general:
>> Hope you don't mind me hijacking the thread to ask if you've ever
>> extracted an adoptopenjdk tarball and were able to use it for running
>> a Swing GUI. The jdk10-openjdk (not bin, didn't try aur)
Am 18.09.18 um 00:23 schrieb Carsten Mattner via arch-general:
> Hope you don't mind me hijacking the thread to ask if you've ever
> extracted an adoptopenjdk tarball and were able to use it for running
> a Swing GUI. The jdk10-openjdk (not bin, didn't try aur) package in arch
> works, but
A non-Arch specific alternative would be to use sdkman: https://sdkman.io/
, which is a generic version/environment manager for JVM-related packages.
I've used it when I wanted to install some SDKs that wouldn't clobber the
system-installed ones.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:34 AM Peter Nabbefeld
On 9/17/18, Guus Snijders via arch-general wrote:
> As an alternative : you could just extract (unpack) the pkg file to a
> versioned directory in your $home and use those for testing.
Hope you don't mind me hijacking the thread to ask if you've ever
extracted an adoptopenjdk tarball and were
Op ma 17 sep. 2018 18:34 schreef Peter Nabbefeld :
>
>
> [...]
>
> Yes and No. These tools allow switching the active JVM. In my case that
> would be overkill, I don't need that. I only need the installed software
> to be reachable from NetBeans IDE. I'm usually fine running my software
> on the
On 9/17/18 6:27 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
>
> Going forward with the new release policies, would it be better to just have
> an
> openjdk/openjre package that's always the latest version, then versioned
> packages for the lts releases, such as they are?
>
This is exactly what
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:34 PM Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 17.09.18 um 17:48 schrieb Carsten Mattner via arch-general:
> > On 9/17/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general
> > wrote:
> >
> >> So essentially what you really want is a way for pacman to remember your
> >> choice. That would
Am 17.09.18 um 17:48 schrieb Carsten Mattner via arch-general:
On 9/17/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
So essentially what you really want is a way for pacman to remember your
choice. That would require pacman modify its configuration which is
something that goes against the
Am 17.09.18 um 16:21 schrieb Eli Schwartz via arch-general:
On September 17, 2018 10:06:04 AM EDT, Peter Nabbefeld
wrote:
You will get prompted again and again on every pacman -Su "to see if
you're finally ready to do the replacement".
That's what I don't want - if I accidently don't
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:20:49 +0200
Guillaume ALAUX via arch-general wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:48 PM Carsten Mattner via arch-general
> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/17/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So essentially what you really want is a way for pacman to remember
Am 17.09.18 um 18:20 schrieb Guillaume ALAUX via arch-general:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:48 PM Carsten Mattner via arch-general
> wrote:
>> On 9/17/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
>>
>>> So essentially what you really want is a way for pacman to remember your
>>> choice. That would
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:48 PM Carsten Mattner via arch-general
wrote:
>
> On 9/17/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
>
> > So essentially what you really want is a way for pacman to remember your
> > choice. That would require pacman modify its configuration which is
> > something that
On 9/17/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> So essentially what you really want is a way for pacman to remember your
> choice. That would require pacman modify its configuration which is
> something that goes against the current architecture... What would happen
> instead is pacman.conf
On September 17, 2018 10:06:04 AM EDT, Peter Nabbefeld
wrote:
>> You will get prompted again and again on every pacman -Su "to see if
>> you're finally ready to do the replacement".
>>
>That's what I don't want - if I accidently don't type the "n" for some
>reason, the JDK will be raplaced.
Am 17.09.18 um 15:58 schrieb Eli Schwartz via arch-general:
On 9/17/18 7:50 AM, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
Sorry, I accidently sent my earlier response to Olli privately. So one
question has been lost:
Probably, pacman could be extended with an option to change the update
strategy from replace
On 9/17/18 7:50 AM, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
> Sorry, I accidently sent my earlier response to Olli privately. So one
> question has been lost:
>
> Probably, pacman could be extended with an option to change the update
> strategy from replace to add?
>
> This would make it a lot easier than
Am 17.09.18 um 12:42 schrieb Luke English:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:34:54PM +0200, Guus Snijders via arch-general wrote:
Op ma 17 sep. 2018 12:04 schreef Olli :
On 17.09.18 09:31, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
There has ever been an EOL for older JDKs. But sometimes You're bound
to a specific
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:34:54PM +0200, Guus Snijders via arch-general wrote:
> Op ma 17 sep. 2018 12:04 schreef Olli :
>
> > On 17.09.18 09:31, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
> > > There has ever been an EOL for older JDKs. But sometimes You're bound
> > > to a specific JDK version in Your working
Op ma 17 sep. 2018 12:04 schreef Olli :
> On 17.09.18 09:31, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
> > There has ever been an EOL for older JDKs. But sometimes You're bound
> > to a specific JDK version in Your working environment, so IMO always
> > replacing is a bad strategy. The problem is, in larger
On 17.09.18 09:31, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
> There has ever been an EOL for older JDKs. But sometimes You're bound
> to a specific JDK version in Your working environment, so IMO always
> replacing is a bad strategy. The problem is, in larger companies it
> sometimes takes some weeks or even months
Am 15.09.18 um 19:54 schrieb Olli:
> LTS versions are only provided by Oracle for their JDK, not for the
> OpenJDK. This graphic explains it quite well:
> https://medium.com/codefx-weekly/no-free-java-lts-version-b850192745fb
There won't be any free LTS releases from Oracle, but the AdoptOpenJDK
On 15/09/2018 14:22, Olli wrote:
> Each new version is replacing the previous
> one so that there is always only one (the latest) supported version.
I think there are technically two supported releases, a long-term- and
short-term-supported release. The current LTS is OpenJDK 8, the next LTS
will
On 15.09.18 10:56, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
> up to JDK 9 I didn't have problems upgrading, but since JDK 10 it always
> wants to replace JDK 9, and I guess it will become worse with JDK 11 etc.
starting with Java 9, the OpenJDK changed its release cycle to publish a
new version every six month.
I have a related question. I tried arch's openjdk packages and those
were successful in displaying Swing UIs.
Then, to check out newer JDKs and IBM's OpenJ9, I grabbed a
build from https://adoptopenjdk.net, and I just couldn't get
any Swing UI to display. It reported many exceptions and that
was
Op 15 sep. 2018 10:56 schreef "Peter Nabbefeld" :
Hello,
up to JDK 9 I didn't have problems upgrading, but since JDK 10 it always
wants to replace JDK 9, and I guess it will become worse with JDK 11 etc.
[...] "IgnorePkg = jdk9-openjdk [...]
As a Java developer, I need to be able to have
Hello,
up to JDK 9 I didn't have problems upgrading, but since JDK 10 it always
wants to replace JDK 9, and I guess it will become worse with JDK 11 etc.
I've set "IgnorePkg = jdk9-openjdk jre9-openjdk jre9-openjdk-headless
openjdk9-doc openjdk9-src" in pacman.conf, so now I'm getting
35 matches
Mail list logo
