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

Re: openjdk maintenance for wheezy and squeeze

Am 18.02.2013 00:08, schrieb Niels Thykier:
> On 2013-02-17 23:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>  - Remove openjdk-6 in wheezy. Probably would require falling back to
>>    gcj. Not recommended as a runtime environment, but should work fine
>>    for building packages, as ecj is used for byte-code compilation.
>>    Falling back to an easier-to-main jvm could be an option too, but
>>    I didn't check how well that would work.
>>    Not having a fall-back would require removing most of java in Debian.
> I do not believe this is a functional solution.  In my experience, gcj
> is not capable of running a lot of our Java programs reliably.

There are CACAO and jamvm. At least for jamvm James Page did do a test rebuild once.

>>  - Release openjdk-7 with wheezy, and do the same as with openjdk-6.
>>    The issue here is that 7 sees more changes than 6, and that the
>>    current openjdk-7 release doesn't build anymore on mips or mipsel,
>>    as communicated to the Debian mips porters, so an update would
>>    require removal of the binary mips packages.  Fine if somebody wants
>>    to fix it, but apparently there is no-one interested in that. So
>>    this looks more difficult than the openjdk-6 updates. Removing
>>    the openjdk mips binaries would require changes to source packages
>>    building arch any packages and build-depending on default-jdk or
>>    openjdk.
> openjdk-7/7u3-2.1.3-1 is currently in testing, so we would release
> openjdk-7 with Wheezy?

well, with an IcedTea 2.1.x release and packaging backports from experimental,
but I'm not going do that for now before the next batch of OpenJDK security
updates scheduled for Feb 19.

> Admittedly with the security bugs in Java
> currently, I suspect the u13 might be better for us.
>   That said, I got the feeling that this option would include us
> replacing the default-jdk with openjdk-7?

No. And I would not recommend 7u13 now, because it has two hotspot versions for
different architectures.

> I believe you and I talked about dropping mips from the Java7 list if no
> one stepped up to assist here (at UDS-R)?  I could see that happen in
> Jessie - actually for Java7, I suppose it could happen in Wheezy as well
> since OpenJDK-6 will stay (for better and for worse).

As I said, dropping mips/mipsel as the only java architecture would require
changes to many packages.  At last Debconf in the release session I raised the
issue about early architecture re-qualification for the next release cycle, so
maybe delay that after that, if it doesn't come late in the jessie cycle.

Reply to: