On 10/23/2017 01:00 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 22/10/2017 à 12:57, Matthias Klose a écrit : >> (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.
Can progress be made with the above? Or is it blocked on lack of feedback from Matthias? A number of packages fail to build now that openjdk-9 is the default-jdk and are forced to disable openjfx support to keep their packages in testing. Kind Regards, Bas
