Le 22/10/2017 à 12:57, Matthias Klose a écrit : > Are you aware if upstream is aware of these issues, and if they intend to stop > using internal OpenJDK APIs? Any plans to get rid off the single file approach > for the database files?
I don't know. At least they are aware that OpenJFX fails to build with a raw OpenJDK not including OpenJFX and they seem willing to address that issue. > (C) looks like the best workaround for now. Looking at at least four security > releases per year, and maybe the double amount of package uploads, the OpenJDK > package has a higher upload frequency anyway. There is however a risk that an > OpenJDK (security) update won't build anymore with a prebuilt OpenJFX (not > sure > if that is a real issue). In any case, the OpenJDK package should have a > build > profile to build without OpenJFX support. Ok let's do that. The name of the package is open to discussion, as well as how the OpenJFX files will be distributed between the openjdk-9-* packages. For the name, since OpenJFX is now clearly becoming an extension of OpenJDK I was thinking about naming the source package "openjdk-9-openjfx" or "openjdk-9-jfx", and appending "-build" to the binary package. What would be a good location for installing the build directory? Regarding the distribution of the files, the lib/modules file of openjdk-9-jre-headless will now contain the JavaFX classes, but the native libraries should go into openjdk-9-jre. javapackager and ant-javafx.jar would go into openjdk-9-jdk-headless. Emmanuel Bourg
