I also want to stress that we care about what maven supports far more than
what it requires to build. If it needs JDK 17 to build but the jars are
compliant with Java 8, that's fine with me.
Hunter
On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 12:47:33 PM PST, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, not sure im ready for a 200M vanilla build tool even if it would have
been ok legally...
Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 21:41, Hunter C Payne
<hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> a écrit :
> I might be wrong but I understood that shipping the JRE/JVM required a
> license and this is why most people don't ship with a JVM bundled. But
> perhaps that has changed since the Oracle v Google/Alphabet trial.
> Hunter
>
> On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 12:00:54 PM PST, Benjamin Marwell <
> bmarw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> FWIW, bazel changed its runtime requirement to Java 21.
> But they are shipping their own Java Runtime, so their users won't notice.
> [1]
>
> I think they are the first build tool to do that.
>
> I say this as a FYI fact only, not implying anything.
> Make of it what you want.
>
> - Ben
>
> Am Di., 20. Feb. 2024 um 21:50 Uhr schrieb Tamás Cservenák
> <ta...@cservenak.net>:
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > I intentionally used "Maven" here, and not "Maven 4" as I am sure the
> > majority of Maven users do not run Maven on the same Java version they
> > target with their build. We do not do that either.
> >
> > Some snippets from Herve (who is the ONLY one doing reproducible checks,
> > kudos for that) votes:
> >
> > Sun, Feb 18, 2024, 9:38 AM
> > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Shade Plugin version 3.5.2
> > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 11 on *nix
> >
> > Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 5:06 AM
> > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven JLink Plugin version 3.2.0
> > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 21 and
> umask
> > 022
> >
> > Mon, Jan 8, 2024, 8:29 AM
> > [VOTE] Release Maven Plugin Tools version 3.11.0
> > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done with JDK 8 on Windows with
> > umask
> >
> > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM
> > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0
> > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 21 and
> umask
> > 022
> >
> > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM
> > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0
> > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 21 and
> umask
> > 022
> >
> > Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:16 AM
> > [VOTE] Apache Maven Build Cache Extension 1.1.0
> > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 11
> >
> > Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 5:17 PM
> > [VOTE] Release Maven Resolver 1.9.17
> > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on *nix with
> umask
> > 022
> >
> > Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 4:34 PM
> > VOTE] Apache Maven 4.0.0-alpha-8 release
> > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on *nix with
> umask
> > 022
> >
> > Mon, Oct 2, 2023, 9:11 AM
> > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.9.5
> > Reproducible not fully ok: reference build done with JDK 17 on *nix and
> > umask 022
> >
> > ====
> >
> > This CLEARLY shows the tendency:
> > - Michael does releases on Java 8 (on windows!), he is a known "aligner"
> > and windows person :)
> > - Olivier used the "minimum" required Java version (for build cache).
> > - Unsure why Herve used Java 11 for the Shade plugin... I mean, he could
> > use 21 but also 8, but he shot for 11 that was EOL at the moment of
> release.
> > - The rest is 21.
> >
> > ====
> >
> > So, the question for those refusing anything other than Java 8 to _run_
> > Maven (or to revert: for those refusing to run Maven on "latest LTS",
> that
> > is currently 21):
> > WHY?
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > T
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>
