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

OpenJDK default versions and security/patch updates



Hi,

Since version 10, OpenJDK started to follow a new release cycle [1]. In
addition, specific vendors can publish a matrix for the support of Java version
on OS versions; for example OpenJDK on RHEL [2].

When looking at openjdk-8-jdk on Stretch [3], it is visible that
Stretch is receiving "security" updates on OpenJDK 8. However, it does not seem
to be the case for Buster [4].

Debian Java page [5] specifies the default Java package for a Debian version but
does not specify further security/patch updates.

Current pages on Debian policy on Java seem to be a bit outdated. [6], [7]

A relevant short discussion occurred at [8] about AdoptOpenJDK.

To summarize my questions:

- Is there a policy page or a discussion list that clarifies when/how a
  security/patch update on OpenJDK is applied on a Debian (LTS) version?

- How a default version of OpenJDK is chosen for a Debian LTS version?

- Is there a document/page that explains how the current infrastructure for
  building OpenJDK packages are on Debian? I understand that OpenJDK releases
  binaries instead of source which makes it harder for OS distribution
  packaging.

The main motivations that drive the above questions are trying build a base
image for production systems that have been using Java on Debian-based distros
and now need to look at Java alternatives with the new release cycle and support
policies.

Thanks in advance, 
Behrooz



[1]: https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/322
[2]: https://access.redhat.com/articles/1299013
[3]: https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=stretch&arch=any&searchon=names&keywords=openjdk-8-jdk
[4]: https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=buster&arch=any&searchon=names&keywords=openjdk-8-jdk
[5]: https://wiki.debian.org/Java
[6]: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/index.en.html
[7]: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/
[8]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2018/09/msg00042.html


Reply to: