has anybody looked at adoptopenjdk
Dear all, I was reading https://blog.joda.org/2018/08/java-is-still-available-at-zero-cost.html I know that the Debian openjdk team is small . Has anybody have been able to look at - https://adoptopenjdk.net/support.html and https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-build This might be something the debian-java team could look at or perhaps team with at some later date once they have the house a bit in order ? Comments welcome. -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A 2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8
Re: has anybody looked at adoptopenjdk
Le 17/09/2018 à 16:09, shirish शिरीष a écrit : > This might be something the debian-java team could look at or perhaps > team with at some later date once they have the house a bit in order ? > > Comments welcome. The build infrastructure used by adoptopenjdk is interesting, especially the automated testing part. Once we are done with the Java 11 transition I'll probably investigate if I can reuse it [1] to run the TCK on the Debian packages. Emmanuel Bourg [1] https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-tests/tree/master/jck
Minimal versions of the class files in buster
Hi, I have two ways of fixing #909040 [1] : either I build against an older jdk or I use a wrapper script ensuring at least java9. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/909040 What should I do? What is the policy? Thanks, Alex
Re: Minimal versions of the class files in buster
Hi, Am 17.09.18 um 23:23 schrieb Alexandre Rossi: > Hi, > > I have two ways of fixing #909040 [1] : either I build against an > older jdk or I use a wrapper script ensuring at least java9. > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/909040 > > What should I do? What is the policy? > > Thanks, > > Alex There is also a compile-java9 target in your build.xml file. I suggest to use that first. Currently it doesn't work because the check "is.java9" doesn't detect our current default version 1.10. Then I recommend to tighten the dependency on default-jre-headless to default-jre-headless (>= 2:1.9) | java9-runtime-headless At the moment you compile for Java 6 bytecode with OpenJDK 10. Unfortunately that doesn't work as expected anymore without using the -release flag. See also [1] for more information. Additionally you could use a wrapper script and use java-wrappers to ensure the user is running a Java 9 compatible JRE. [2] Regards, Markus [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/247 [2] https://wiki.debian.org/Java/Packaging/Ant#java-wrappers_versus_jarwrapper signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Minimal versions of the class files in buster
Le 17/09/2018 à 23:23, Alexandre Rossi a écrit : > What should I do? What is the policy? Java 11 will be the default, but preserving compatibility with Java 8 as much as possible in Buster would be nice. That said, #909040 is a javahelper bug, I added a small class to detect if the JVM is 32 or 64 bits and I didn't pay attention to the source/target. I'll fix that. Emmanuel Bourg
