Re: java outlook for stretch and buster
On 10/09/16 14:28, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10.09.2016 12:28, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 10/09/16 11:09, Matthias Klose wrote: >> >>> The ARM32 port already is in an upstream repository, and I'm told >>> that the s390x is on it's way. Even if these ports will not be >>> merged before openjdk-10, it's my intent to build these from their >>> branches, as done in the past with the AArch64 and PPC64 port. >> >> We should perhaps be looking at proper stable release branches for these, >> as we have for AArch64. >> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/aarch64-port/jdk8u/ is a clone against a >> tag of the upstream stable jdk8u, but with AArch64 added. The diffs >> from upstream are as small as we can possibly make them. > > It would be nice if the branch could be kept up to date. Usually it's only > updated after a security update, however I'd like to see the merge for the > base > of the next security update (in this case jdk8u112-b04) be done before the > security update. Sure, that's a matter of negotiation. Andrew Hughes does this job. > It would not be a problem, if providers of security updates > would be allowed to share their work, but my understanding is this is yet not > allowed. I don't really understand what point you're making here, so I can't reply. Andrew.
Re: java outlook for stretch and buster
On 10.09.2016 12:28, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 10/09/16 11:09, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> The ARM32 port already is in an upstream repository, and I'm told >> that the s390x is on it's way. Even if these ports will not be >> merged before openjdk-10, it's my intent to build these from their >> branches, as done in the past with the AArch64 and PPC64 port. > > We should perhaps be looking at proper stable release branches for these, > as we have for AArch64. > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/aarch64-port/jdk8u/ is a clone against a > tag of the upstream stable jdk8u, but with AArch64 added. The diffs > from upstream are as small as we can possibly make them. It would be nice if the branch could be kept up to date. Usually it's only updated after a security update, however I'd like to see the merge for the base of the next security update (in this case jdk8u112-b04) be done before the security update. It would not be a problem, if providers of security updates would be allowed to share their work, but my understanding is this is yet not allowed. Matthias
Re: java outlook for stretch and buster
On 10/09/16 11:09, Matthias Klose wrote: > The ARM32 port already is in an upstream repository, and I'm told > that the s390x is on it's way. Even if these ports will not be > merged before openjdk-10, it's my intent to build these from their > branches, as done in the past with the AArch64 and PPC64 port. We should perhaps be looking at proper stable release branches for these, as we have for AArch64. http://hg.openjdk.java.net/aarch64-port/jdk8u/ is a clone against a tag of the upstream stable jdk8u, but with AArch64 added. The diffs from upstream are as small as we can possibly make them. Andrew.
java outlook for stretch and buster
As part of an overview of different toolchains [1], I looked at java as well (re-posted here): """ Java/OpenJDK For the stretch release openjdk-8 will be fine as the default java implementation. For buster, gcj (to be removed in GCC 7) won't be available anymore, and we'll end up with architectures without a java implementation. At the same time I'd like to consider to stop providing OpenJDK zero builds, leaving powerpc and mips* without a java implementation as well (currently not building for openjdk-9). armhf (not armel) and s390x have Hotspot ports underway. """ The ARM32 port already is in an upstream repository, and I'm told that the s390x is on it's way. Even if these ports will not be merged before openjdk-10, it's my intent to build these from their branches, as done in the past with the AArch64 and PPC64 port. Looking at the zero based ports at [2] isn't very encouraging. If you feel that it's worth keeping these, please send patches to get them built. Matthias [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/09/msg00193.html [2] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=openjdk-9&suite=experimental
