On 04.04.2018 07:10, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > 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.
I wouldn't spend any time on that. We are moving towards 11, and openjfx is split out there. So yes, maybe packages have to drop openjfx support for some time. Matthias