Re: changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:40 PM, peter green plugw...@p10link.net wrote: :-) I'm one who asked there some time back why java7 is no longer in the archives (unstable/experimental), while the last binaries I had installed still work OK on my mini-pc... I'm just curious, sorry for asking to the lists... I want to understand if the mini-pc is still a low performance desktop alternative with java enabled, or is no longer suited for that, :-) So your answers are very appreciated. The problem is that if you want openjdk on your architecture then someone has to commit to doing the work to keep it building and working in the face of changes from upstream. For x86/x64 and presumablly to some extent sparc (though I don't know if they test linux/sparc or only solaris/sparc) upstream keeps it working. For arm ubuntu and probablly other commerical linux distros need to keep it working. Powerpc seems to be be getting at least some support from IBM. OK, now it's clear to me. BTW, that helps understand better the status of the longson based machines as low performance desktops. Thanks a lot for the answer, -- Javier. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALUrRGe8adVWA=xwkh8gotrbodva060djjc5f_j4s39hcqr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures
:-) I'm one who asked there some time back why java7 is no longer in the archives (unstable/experimental), while the last binaries I had installed still work OK on my mini-pc... I'm just curious, sorry for asking to the lists... I want to understand if the mini-pc is still a low performance desktop alternative with java enabled, or is no longer suited for that, :-) So your answers are very appreciated. The problem is that if you want openjdk on your architecture then someone has to commit to doing the work to keep it building and working in the face of changes from upstream. For x86/x64 and presumablly to some extent sparc (though I don't know if they test linux/sparc or only solaris/sparc) upstream keeps it working. For arm ubuntu and probablly other commerical linux distros need to keep it working. Powerpc seems to be be getting at least some support from IBM. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/519eb6e6.1020...@p10link.net
Re: changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures
Hey Matthias On 06/05/13 15:22, Matthias Klose wrote: It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on architectures with non-working java7. +1 Patches for the transition to Java7 should be available in the BTS, mostly submitted by James Page. Some may be still lurking around as diffs in Ubuntu packages, apologies for that. There are a few cases, where Java7 is not yet an alternative to Java6, so the transition should not be blocked on these missing bits. However it should be clear that this is an interim solution, and OpenJDK 6 will be removed for jessie. The outstanding list of submitted patches (from the transition in Ubuntu 12.10) can be found here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=openjdk-7-transition;users=ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com The list of packages I did not transition includes (taken from Ubuntu 13.04): Reverse-Build-Depends-Indep === * clojure1.2 * jmock2 Reverse-Build-Depends = * arb * libextractor-java * libsbml * netbeans * nordugrid-arc * openjdk-6 * osmosis-plugin-borderextract * scala * uwsgi * wims These packages explicitly BD on openjdk-6-jdk - some notes on why (only a partial list): wims: compiler flags all over the place not compatible with openjdk-7 rjava: involved as needs a build system change as well scala: lots of code failures - may need to stick with 6 uwsgi: Specifically targets and provides java 6 packages.. visualvm: specifically targets openjdk-6 Some of those packages have openjdk-6-jdk as an alternative BD - that should probably be dropped: libextractor-java: DONE - alternative bd only libsbml: DONE - alternative bd only nordugrid-arc: DONE - not primary BD Cheers James -- James Page Ubuntu Core Developer Debian Maintainer james.p...@ubuntu.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5190ffcc.9090...@ubuntu.com
Re: changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote: It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on architectures with non-working java7. Just asking as a loongson-2f user, :-) What makes java7 not to work on those architectures? Building issues? ... So the architectures to drop java support would be kfreebsd-any, hurd-i386, mips, mipsel, s390, ia64 So, if openjdk is to be dropped on these archs, what alternative will be there for them? Are there any instructions so users can experiment and attempt building themselves? ... - openjdk support for mips and mipsel is currently broken, with several requests for help on debian-mips left unanswered. :-) I'm one who asked there some time back why java7 is no longer in the archives (unstable/experimental), while the last binaries I had installed still work OK on my mini-pc... I'm just curious, sorry for asking to the lists... I want to understand if the mini-pc is still a low performance desktop alternative with java enabled, or is no longer suited for that, :-) So your answers are very appreciated. -- Javier. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/calurrgfuuumlku6jdjqb-fujn879efyyaojwwsnkbvyxha-...@mail.gmail.com
Re: changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures
Matthias Klose, le Mon 06 May 2013 16:22:30 +0200, a écrit : - hurd never had openjdk support, and afaik, nobody is working on that. There has been work towards this, notably by Jeremie Koenig. I don't know the status, we just have not made it a strong priority so far. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130506143659.gf6...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Re: changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures
Matthias Klose dixit: Currently java bindings/packages are built for all architectures, however some architectures still use gcj as the (only available) Java implementation, and some OpenJDK zero ports are non-functional at this point, and Debian porters usually don't care about that. So the architectures to drop java support would be Yeah, sorry, I really should contact the Zero developers about why it doesn’t work on m68k. On the other hand, judging from the talk at FOSDEM, their focus seems to be on Shark these days, and Zero isn’t worked much on upstream either… but “us porters” should definitely get at least Zero working. (No LLVM for m68k in sight. There’s a project, but everything interesting is stubbed out. I don’t do C++.) bye, //mirabilos -- Solange man keine schmutzigen Tricks macht, und ich meine *wirklich* schmutzige Tricks, wie bei einer doppelt verketteten Liste beide Pointer XORen und in nur einem Word speichern, funktioniert Boehm ganz hervorragend. -- Andreas Bogk über boehm-gc in d.a.s.r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1305061920550.7...@herc.mirbsd.org
