[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: Default target Java for OpenJDK7



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Forwarding to debian-java list for wider discussion...

Switching the default target at the JDK level is a no-go as it will
break compatibility with upstream behaviour.

Anyone else got any ideas as to how to approach this issue?

Cheers

James

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Default target Java for OpenJDK7
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:20:57 +0000
From: James Page <james.page@ubuntu.com>
To: Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com>

Hi Matthias

Saw your ping last night re backwards compatibility if/when we switch
the default-jdk to openjdk-7.

The same thought had crossed my mind as I started to work on the FTBFS
list with openjdk-7.

Here what I think the current state of the archive is with respect to
this future problem:

1) Maven based packages;  currently default to source/target 1.3
unless override in the package itself (and most do).

2) Ant based packages; default to whatever the JDK does unless
explicitly set.

3) Javahelper based packages; source is set to 1.5 but target is left
to the JDK.

4) Others; all sorts of pain I guess!

There is alot of potential for stuff to get built that won't work on
openjdk-6 so we need todo something; maybe we could default openjdk-7
to use target 1.5 by default rather than 1.7?  I don't like doing that
as it creates different behaviour on Ubuntu to upstream but we already
did it with Maven2 (should be default of 1.5 not 1.3).
[...]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=Xphn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: