Re: OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports
Le 02/02/2021 à 19:04, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> bullseye-backports would be the perfect place for providing
> OpenJDK 17 to users on bullseye.
>
> OpenJDK can only be built with the previous version, and doing a
> 11 -> 12 -> 13 -> 14 -> 15 -> 16 -> 17
> bootstrap for 9 release architectures in bullseye-backports would be
> quite painful.
I did that to backport openjdk-11 to stretch and that was indeed
tedious. It consisted in uploading openjdk-{9,10,11} to
stretch-backports, not as separate packages but sequentially as the
final openjdk-11 package. At each step I had to wait for the builders to
complete the build before uploading the next version. And it took a lot
of time on some architectures (especially mipsel if I remember well, the
backport queue is processed with a lower priority and the builder is
constantly used for higher priority builds).
The whole backport was completed in 2 weeks. I guess a similar process
to bootstrap openjdk-17 from openjdk-11 would take 1 month.
> Shipping without any security support either OpenJDK 16 or a pre-release
> of OpenJDK 17 in bullseye only for avoiding an OpenJDK bootstrap in
> bullseye-backports would sound very wrong.
I agree that shipping a non LTS release of OpenJDK (12 to 16) is a bad
idea. Shipping OpenJDK 17 is worth considering though.
> My suggestion:
>
> No OpenJDK other than 11 is shipped in bullseye.
>
> If at the time of the bullseye release openjdk-17 in unstable is ready
> to migrate to testing except for the freeze, this means that:
> 1. it will migrate at the first migration of bookworm, and
> 2. the binaries will be installable on all architectures in bullseye
>
> The bootstrap could then be avoided by verbatim copying of this
> openjdk-17 sources and binaries for all architectures from bookworm
> to bullseye-backports.
>
> Subsequent updates of openjdk-17 in bullseye-backports would then follow
> the normal backports rules.
If openjdk-17 can't be shipped in bullseyes even with prominent warnings
that it's unsupported, then this sounds like a good idea.
Emmanuel Bourg
Reply to: