On 2015-05-26 17:25, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> I agree that the is a good idea to clarify this. My personal
>> recommendation is to declare that:
>>
>> * gcj-jdk is not considered a suitable Java implementation for our end
>> users nor for implementing the default-java.
>
> Please do not do that. Way too much software, even *really* deep
> down in the cycle, things like gettext, depend on default-jdk and
> build java versions of their libraries. Even if they don’t work
> as well as the OpenJDK versions, or don’t work at all, they still
> prevent the source packages FTBFSing and provide Build-Depends for
> lots of other packages.
>
While a valid concern, I personally disagree that this is sufficient
reason to keep the "silently broken" behaviour, which is our status quo.
That said, as I am not going to implement the change, I am not the one
you need to convince.
> If you really want to go this route, please ensure that Debian can
> still work on OpenJDK-less architectures first, by removing the
> java packages from all those source packages.
>
> Thanks.
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
>
This is certainly a possible solution. Another would be to make them
build-depend on gcj-jdk, if they are truly java5 compatible. I believe
gettext is mostly in the latter category - my guess is that they have
not touched those bindings considerably in many years.
My concern with gcj-jdk implementing default-java is that it leads to
silent breakage because gcj-jdk is stuck in ("almost") Java5 support
while Debian is moving to OpenJDK-8 with lambda functions, tons of new
classes etc. This breakage is /not/ discovered by us, but by our end
users that consumes ports without OpenJDK support and I think that is
the wrong signal to send to our users.
Thanks,
~Niels
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55649729.1090...@thykier.net
