Re: default-java and openjdk-7 on sparc
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:55:51PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2013-11-09 14:35, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > (With my Java hat on and my Release hat off)
> >
> > We are getting close to being able to remove openjdk-6 from sid and
> > testing. However, there is major blocker, which is java-common itself
> > (and its default-* binaries). mips and mipsel are the only two
> > architectures still using OpenJDK 6 as default java.
> >
> > At the current time, OpenJDK 7 have not been successfully ported on
> > these architectures and it is my understanding that it is unlikely to
> > change in the near future. This leaves gcj-jdk as the only viable
> > option for mips and mipsel.
> >
> > I intend to implement these changes in java-common in about 14 days,
> > unless there are alternative solutions (that does not involve keeping
> > openjdk-6 around).
> >
> > ~Niels
> >
> >
>
> Hi sparc porters,
>
> We are currently debating whether the default java should change from
> openjdk-6 to gcj for mips and mipsel. I now noticed that while sparc
> uses openjdk-7 as default java, openjdk-7 no longer builds successfully
> on sparc and haven't done so for at least 85 days.
>
> It is my understanding that Matthias Klose (doko) is the only active
> maintainer working on OpenJDK-7 and he does not have time to solve this
> problem. While this is not an immediate problem for getting rid of
> openjdk-6, it will be a problem that needs to be solved before the
> Jessie freeze[0].
>
> If you are interested in fixing the OpenJDK-7 build failure, you may (or
> may not) find [1] interesting.
>
> ~Niels
>
> [0] Currently available solutions are: use gcj as default java or make
> OpenJDK-7 build again.
>
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2013/11/msg00072.html
>
> (the "odd patch" being a reference to patch attached to #729448)
>
The patch I sent for MIPS also mentions SPARC as it has the same
alignment constraints. That said the patch fixes zero, while SPARC is
using hotspot by default instead. Maybe using zero on SPARC is a
possibility, though it will decrease performances.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: