Re: OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports
Le 07/02/2021 à 00:43, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> Users will probably ignore that and use it anyway. It would have been
> good if it could be included and kept up to date, but that’s doubling
> of efforts, not worth the hassle,
I wonder if the effort of maintaining OpenJDK 17 in bullseyes could be
significantly reduced by automating the process. The upstream LTS branch
is going to be extremely stable, the releases are clearly tagged in the
upstream repository, and the Debian packaging is very flexible and
compatible with several Debian releases. It should be possible to fetch
the upstream security updates, rebase the Debian packaging and upload
the package automatically.
That wasn't possible a few years ago, I vaguely remember Matthias
telling me that up to Java 8 the security updates were not easily
identifiable in the upstream repository (if available at all), and that
some architectures required changes cherry picked from alternative
repositories.
If we can't rely on the main upstream repository to support all the
Debian architectures, maybe we can restrict the automatic updates to
those supported upstream (at least amd64 and i386, maybe arm64 too).
> plus it would mean people would expect Java packages shipped with bullseye
> to work with 17, which isn’t the case (plus shipping only one makes
> iteasier/clearer).
The compatibility of the Java packages in bullseye with OpenJDK 17 is
rather good. I ran a mass rebuild this week and the success rate was
around 85%. There were many trivial build issues (javadoc errors,
language level to change from 6 to 7) so the runtime compatibility is
likely to be higher. I've filed the issues in the BTS:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=default-java17;users=debian-java@lists.debian.org
Emmanuel Bourg
Reply to: