Re: The (uncalled for) toolchain maintainers roll call for stretch
On 10.09.2016 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
> While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
> toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria documented
> by the release team. I'd like to document the status how I do understand it for
> some of the toolchains available in Debian.
> For the stretch release openjdk-8 will be fine as the default java
> implementation. For buster, gcj (to be removed in GCC 7) won't be available
> anymore, and we'll end up with architectures without a java implementation. At
> the same time I'd like to consider to stop providing OpenJDK zero builds,
> leaving powerpc and mips* without a java implementation as well (currently not
> building for openjdk-9). armhf (not armel) and s390x have Hotspot ports underway.
Can you explain the reason why you consider stopping OpenJDK zero builds?
I'm asking, because on hppa we currently use gcj and we don't have any OpenJDK port yet.
My hope was to fix at some point in future the old existing OpenJDK zero port patches to get some newer
JDK even if it's slower. With your intention to stop zero builds, we probably won't have any
JDK at all...