Re: OpenJFX 9 integration
On 04.04.2018 07:10, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 01:00 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 22/10/2017 à 12:57, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>>> (C) looks like the best workaround for now. Looking at at least four security
>>> releases per year, and maybe the double amount of package uploads, the OpenJDK
>>> package has a higher upload frequency anyway. There is however a risk that an
>>> OpenJDK (security) update won't build anymore with a prebuilt OpenJFX (not sure
>>> if that is a real issue). In any case, the OpenJDK package should have a build
>>> profile to build without OpenJFX support.
>>
>> Ok let's do that. The name of the package is open to discussion, as well
>> as how the OpenJFX files will be distributed between the openjdk-9-*
>> packages.
>>
>> For the name, since OpenJFX is now clearly becoming an extension of
>> OpenJDK I was thinking about naming the source package
>> "openjdk-9-openjfx" or "openjdk-9-jfx", and appending "-build" to the
>> binary package. What would be a good location for installing the build
>> directory?
>>
>> Regarding the distribution of the files, the lib/modules file of
>> openjdk-9-jre-headless will now contain the JavaFX classes, but the
>> native libraries should go into openjdk-9-jre. javapackager and
>> ant-javafx.jar would go into openjdk-9-jdk-headless.
>
> Can progress be made with the above? Or is it blocked on lack of
> feedback from Matthias?
>
> A number of packages fail to build now that openjdk-9 is the default-jdk
> and are forced to disable openjfx support to keep their packages in testing.
I wouldn't spend any time on that. We are moving towards 11, and openjfx is
split out there. So yes, maybe packages have to drop openjfx support for some time.
Matthias
Reply to: