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

Re: sbt / scala and jdk 6 and 8

Am 14.02.19 um 17:21 schrieb Thomas Finneid:
> On 14.02.2019 11:43, Markus Koschany wrote:> [btw are you subscribed to
> the list? Then I don't need to CC you]
> Sorry, it seemed I had subscribed to the wrong java list, but should be
> fixed now.
>>> No matter how one looks at it, Debian needs to make a strategy change
>>> regarding OpenJdk releases and versions supported.
>> We did take all that into consideration. :) If you had followed our
> Sorry, I did not mean to say you dont know this. I am just countering
> your argument, by saying its not a good idea to leave a lot of jdk8
> users and apps, that for some reason or other, cant move away from jdk-8
> just yet.

We understand that there are a lot of projects that still use OpenJDK8.
But as I said we cannot support every use case (unless someone steps up
before it's too late and demonstrates that it will work). The most
important aspect for us is that we have a long-term supported JDK/JRE in
Debian 10 "Buster" and that all our packages work with it. There is no
need to install two different JDK/JRE on a Debian system and we don't
support use cases outside of the scope of the Debian distribution
(meaning if project x is not part of Debian it may or may not be supported).

> So what will debian do in 3,5 years when the current LTS version is EOL?

OpenJDK 11 is at least supported until 2023. (+ some extra years in case
RedHat or a similar stake holder steps in again and provides security

The next LTS release will be OpenJDK 17 but it will be released after we
release Debian 11. There is nothing decided yet but given the choices we
will probably ship with OpenJDK 11 again.

> One issue here is that the current scala 2.11.12 package is not
> completely stable. The package has been built wrong and depends on the
> wrong version of jdk.
> But perhaps I should post a bug report and add it as a blocking bug to
> #920037?

Yes, that would be correct and a good choice.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: