[please ignore this thread started by Adrian; he's making statements on behalf
of other teams, which are not correct. Also he "forgot" to CC the security team
and the package maintainers. The issue is handled in #975016.]
On 2/6/21 11:47 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 02/02/2021 à 19:04, Adrian Bu
Le 07/02/2021 à 00:43, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> Users will probably ignore that and use it anyway. It would have been
> good if it could be included and kept up to date, but that’s doubling
> of efforts, not worth the hassle,
I wonder if the effort of maintaining OpenJDK 17 in bullseyes could
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> If openjdk-17 can't be shipped in bullseyes even with prominent warnings
> that it's unsupported
Users will probably ignore that and use it anyway. It would have been
good if it could be included and kept up to date, but that’s doubling
of efforts, not
Le 02/02/2021 à 19:04, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> bullseye-backports would be the perfect place for providing
> OpenJDK 17 to users on bullseye.
>
> OpenJDK can only be built with the previous version, and doing a
> 11 -> 12 -> 13 -> 14 -> 15 -> 16 -> 17
> bootstrap for 9 release architectures in bu
The problem:
OpenJDK 11 LTS is the default JDK in both buster and bullseye.
The next LTS OpenJDK 17 is already in unstable, but it will not even
have a stable release by the time bullseye releases.
OpenJDK 17 is expected to be the OpenJDK in bookworm.
Some users will want to use OpenJDK 17 on
5 matches
Mail list logo
