Hi, Thank you!!!
Yes, the patch is cumulative and contains all the relevant changes. Existing jtreg6 version (6.1+2-1~deb10u1) in buster is sufficient to rebuild openjdk-11 and -17 with a number of failing tests. If we update to 6.2, those tests should start passing, but the update is not mandatory. I have seen some pull requests[1] that backport jtreg 7 compatibility to openjdk-17, so we might need to switch to it at some point and this will also require testng 7. Best Regards, Vladimir. [1] https://github.com/openjdk/jdk17u-dev/pull/1672 On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 3:58 PM tony mancill <tmanc...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 09:49:01AM +1200, Vladimir Petko wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Upgrading to 6.2 does not introduce any jtreg regressions in > > openjdk-11 and -17. > > Hi Vladimir, > > Thank you for your response. The upload is ready, but I want to check > once more with the list whether there are any concerns. The build-dep > on libtestng7-java in this upload will require introducing testng7 [1] > to old-old-stable (buster) if we need the updated jtreg6 there. > > Also, I believe the patch you provided addresses of Debian #1036065 and > #1036066 [2,3] too. Can you confirm? > > Thank you, > tony > > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/testng7 > [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036065 > [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036066 > > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 7:06 AM tony mancill <tmanc...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 09:28:39AM +1200, Vladimir Petko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > The build.xml is not supported by the upstream, so I have updated the > > > > patch to include rule changes to use the provided Makefile[1]. > > > > > > > > Changes: > > > > * Use Makefile to build jtreg (LP: #2031041). > > > > - Use --release option in Makefile compile options. > > > > - d/p/*: drop build.xml patches. > > > > - d/control: add libguice-java, zip. > > > > > > Hello Vladimir, hi Emmanuel: > > > > > > Vladimir, thank you for this patch (and others). I applied it to the > > > current source repo and rebuild all of the build r-deps before I > > > realized that the source repo contains 6.2+1 [1] (not 6.1+2), which > > > hasn't been uploaded. > > > > > > Are there any considerations or concerns about going ahead with an > > > upload of 6.2+1? As I said, I was able to build openjdk-11, -17, and > > > -19 with that version. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > tony > > > > > > [1] > > > https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/jtreg/-/commit/18fe40fc470b04bc735b425bba250db61340fcb3