Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-27 Thread tony mancill
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 03:51:38PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > openjdk-13 does have the problem, so we could do another upload, but > > given that it's not an LTS release and 14 is already available and > > patched, do we need to? > > Good question. It's easy to do, and it does fix a bug, so

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-25 Thread Florian Weimer
* Julian Gilbey: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 06:22:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * tony mancill: >> >> > I had already prepared the NMU for openjdk-15 - building first without >> > the patch and then with it so I could test with both - so I will go >> > ahead and upload that package today. >

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-25 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 06:22:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * tony mancill: > > > I had already prepared the NMU for openjdk-15 - building first without > > the patch and then with it so I could test with both - so I will go > > ahead and upload that package today. > > There's also an upstr

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-25 Thread Florian Weimer
* tony mancill: > I had already prepared the NMU for openjdk-15 - building first without > the patch and then with it so I could test with both - so I will go > ahead and upload that package today. There's also an upstream change to honor SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH: commit 1a16a4b62829e54a4af5446ef15b981

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-25 Thread tony mancill
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 03:51:38PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:21:46PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:52:50AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > Great, and there's a bug report #944738 > > > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=94

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-25 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:21:46PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:52:50AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Great, and there's a bug report #944738 > > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944738) for > > openjdk-11; I haven't checked if there are bugs reported

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-24 Thread tony mancill
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:52:50AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 08:47:52PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > > Obviously, similar builds will be needed for openjdk-{11,13,14,15}. > > > > Yes, I will start working on the others. > > Great, and there's a bug report #944738 > (

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-24 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 08:47:52PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > Super! I wonder, though, why it didn't work for me first time round? > > I rebuilt it and it worked the second time, though. So maybe I > > changed something. > > The rebuild of openjdk-14, including tests and the ad-hoc jlink tes

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-23 Thread tony mancill
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 08:55:11PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:09:28AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > > dh_strip_nondeterminism gets its timestamp from the debian/changelog > > > file, while strip-nondeterminism strips the timestamps. > > > > > > So here's a replacemen

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-23 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:09:28AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > dh_strip_nondeterminism gets its timestamp from the debian/changelog > > file, while strip-nondeterminism strips the timestamps. > > > > So here's a replacement patch which fixes everything except > > java.naming.jmod. I have to ru

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-23 Thread tony mancill
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 01:45:23PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:49:24PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > > * Run the sha256sum command (protected with a '-' in case it fails!) > > > at several points in the build-arch and install targets to see when > > > the hashes ch

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-23 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:49:24PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > * Run the sha256sum command (protected with a '-' in case it fails!) > > at several points in the build-arch and install targets to see when > > the hashes change, if at all. > > Good idea. I am doing that now, and also buildin

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-22 Thread tony mancill
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:07:12AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:49:24PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > [...] > > > > One other thing I wanted to mention is what I'm using for a test case: > > > > jlink --add-modules java.desktop --output test > > > > This fails, com

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-22 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:49:24PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > [...] > > One other thing I wanted to mention is what I'm using for a test case: > > jlink --add-modules java.desktop --output test > > This fails, complaining about the hash of java.xml recorded in > java.base. But other invocat

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-21 Thread tony mancill
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 09:24:36PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 07:03:08AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:01:35AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 09:59:22PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > > > Hi Tiago, hi Julian, > > > >

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-21 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 07:03:08AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:01:35AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 09:59:22PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > > Hi Tiago, hi Julian, > > > [...] > > > Julian, I applied the patch and built the package successfull

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-21 Thread tony mancill
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:01:35AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 09:59:22PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > Hi Tiago, hi Julian, > > [...] > > Julian, I applied the patch and built the package successfully, but > > jlink still fails with the "expected hash" error. It's (perh

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-21 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 09:59:22PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > Hi Tiago, hi Julian, > [...] > Julian, I applied the patch and built the package successfully, but > jlink still fails with the "expected hash" error. It's (perhaps) > interesting that the expected hash does differ between the patched

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-20 Thread tony mancill
Hi Tiago, hi Julian, On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 01:13:55PM -0300, Tiago Daitx wrote: > Hi Tony, > > Matthias is the actual Debian Maintainer, but in my opinion the patch > is great and should be ok to go do an upload including it. Yes, that's a good point. Once the upload is ready (see below), I w

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-18 Thread Julian Gilbey
Dear Tony and Tiago, Pleasure! Needs forced me to do so ;-) Best wishes, Julian On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 01:13:55PM -0300, Tiago Daitx wrote: > Hi Tony, > > Matthias is the actual Debian Maintainer, but in my opinion the patch > is great and should be ok to go do an upload including it. >

Bug#944738: [Openjdk] Bug#944738: jlink: Hash of module differs to expected hash recorded in java.base

2020-09-18 Thread Tiago Daitx
Hi Tony, Matthias is the actual Debian Maintainer, but in my opinion the patch is great and should be ok to go do an upload including it. Thanks Julian for the investigation and figuring out how to fix this problem, I really appreciate it. =) Best regards, Tiago On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:12 AM