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-*
>> 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
>> 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.