Re: OpenJDK 8 transition
I did a practice partial archive rebuild with ebourg's 1.8 default-jdk,
to see what kind of problems might be left. 1144 packages[1] that
dose-debuildcheck thinks depend on default-jdk, around ten
unexpected/new failures.
My full notes are on whiteboard[2], with a backup at time of sending[3].
Final build logs; anything marked as "failure" here failed multiple times:
https://rbuild.fau.xxx/2015-08-31/
Probably broken by jdk8:
------------------------
default-jdk doesn't have /usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-amd64/lib/tools.jar:
* biojava3-live
* biojava4-live
Refuses to run under jdk8:
* netbeans
fatal error: jni_md.h: No such file or directory
* libnb-platform18-java
"cannot access" errors are, I think, from -source 1.5:
* xmlbeans error: cannot access TypeStoreUser
* lucene4.10 error: cannot access SelfDescribing
* lucene4 error: cannot access SelfDescribing
* sweethome3d-furniture-editor error: cannot access Localizable
* freemind error: cannot access Opcodes
* gnome-split @Override
And, not so sure about these:
* jaxb <anonymous com.sun.tools.jxc.model.nav.ApNavigator$1> is not abstract and does not override abstract method <A>getAnnotationsByType(Class<A>) in AnnotatedConstruct
* jing-trang Annotations cannot be converted to AnnotationsImpl
* maven-stapler-plugin javadoc: error - option -locale must be first on the command line.
On top of these, there's:
* Eclipse things (which we know is being worked on)
* 15 packages which are probably broken due to incompatability with the
builder, or flaky test sets, which should probably be re-tested.
* 15 packages which need more time or memory or.. than the builder was
willing to give them, and should probably be tested.
* ~17 packages with RC bugs already
* ~15 packages with other build problems
Some of these may have already been fixed; been doing this for a few
days, on and off.
Chris.
(I'm on-list but much prefer IRC; #debian-java @ oftc.)
1: https://paste.debian.net/310020/
2: http://whiteboard.debian.net/a69515.txt
3: https://paste.debian.net/310023/
Reply to: