On 29.11.2017 12:46, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 29/11/2017 à 10:32, dalibor topic a écrit :
I'd agree with Matthias that the binaries of some builds are not by
themselves newsworthy for the debian-java mailing list specifically,
since Debian doesn't use third party binaries in its Java packaging.
Actually these binaries can be turned into Debian packages with the
java-package tool.
Thanks, Emmanuel - I didn't expect that to necessarily be the case,
since the package description at
https://packages.debian.org/es/sid/java-package only claims support up
to Oracle JDK 8, and it seems that support for Oracle JDK 9 is WIP:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=876426
Does java-package work for JDK 10 EA builds?
For example a feature should be removed in the upcoming LTS
release only if it was deprecated (with an alternative available) in the
latest LTS. So for javah that would mean deprecated until Java 11, and
removed in Java 12 (for the next Java 17 LTS).
An alternative to javah has been available with the -h flag for javac since
JDK 8 (2014). It might be removed in JDK 10 (2018). If you have a good
sense
how much affected Debian would be by this change, that would be great
feedback to share on the thread at
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-dev/2017-November/000278.html .
That being said, the OpenJDK policy for removals of deprecated
functionality is not tied to LTS releases. Whether it should be would be
an interesting discussion to have on the jdk-...@openjdk.java.net
mailing list. For some background on enhancements to deprecation
(policies) since JDK 9, see http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/277 .
Meanwhile, JDK 9 comes with the jdeprscan tool, which can be useful in
the context of detection of potential future issues with third party
code using deprecated APIs. Please see
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/tools/jdeprscan.htm#JSWOR-GUID-2B7588B0-92DB-4A88-88D4-24D183660A62
for a reference in general, and the -for-removal flag in particular.
A jdeprscan -for-removal run might be a useful check to consider adding
to lintian, for example.
Having the mails on the debian-java list is an
opportunity to provide feedback in the Debian context and have more
developers joining the discussion. That would be lost with direct emails.
Indeed, but if someone feels that the early access announcement mails
are inappropriate for a list they subscribed to, then I don't think that
it's a good idea to send them further emails of the same kind.
To be successful, the OpenJDK Quality Outreach depends on the good will
of the open source developers and communities it engages with.
Encouraging open source community developers to test and report issues
as well as provide feedback on upcoming OpenJDK releases can't work if
it's perceived as annoying or misplaced.
Which is why I proposed some modifications to the format of the e-mails
to potentially make them more useful for Matthias. Let's see what he
thinks first.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
<http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
<tel:+491737185961>
ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg
ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603
Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher
<http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
practices and products that help protect the environment
