Groups > linux.debian.maint.java > #12051

Re: OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports

Path	csiph.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.java, linux.debian.devel.release
Subject	Re: OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports
Date	Sat, 06 Feb 2021 23:50:02 +0100
Message-ID	<BFEyS-60u-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<BE8B3-75e-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>, debian-java@lists.debian.org, ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-backports@lists.debian.org
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-java-request@lists.debian.org Sat Feb 6 22:47:49 2021
Old-Return-Path	<ebourg@apache.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-10.443 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.105, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SARE_MLH_Stock10=1.66] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight	NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .apache. - helo: .mxout1-ec2-va.apache. - helo-domain: .apache.) FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -5.5
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language	en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
X-Mailing-List	<debian-java@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/22678
List-ID	<debian-java.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/3e72c4fc-9ad4-5ba2-c194-e2449d1d3d75@apache.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	51
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date	Sat, 6 Feb 2021 23:47:32 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID	<3e72c4fc-9ad4-5ba2-c194-e2449d1d3d75@apache.org>
X-Original-References	<20210202180412.GI23296@localhost>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:12051 linux.debian.devel.release:99735

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

Le 02/02/2021 à 19:04, Adrian Bunk a écrit :

> bullseye-backports would be the perfect place for providing
> OpenJDK 17 to users on bullseye.
> 
> OpenJDK can only be built with the previous version, and doing a
> 11 -> 12 -> 13 -> 14 -> 15 -> 16 -> 17
> bootstrap for 9 release architectures in bullseye-backports would be 
> quite painful.

I did that to backport openjdk-11 to stretch and that was indeed
tedious. It consisted in uploading openjdk-{9,10,11} to
stretch-backports, not as separate packages but sequentially as the
final openjdk-11 package. At each step I had to wait for the builders to
complete the build before uploading the next version. And it took a lot
of time on some architectures (especially mipsel if I remember well, the
backport queue is processed with a lower priority and the builder is
constantly used for higher priority builds).

The whole backport was completed in 2 weeks. I guess a similar process
to bootstrap openjdk-17 from openjdk-11 would take 1 month.


> Shipping without any security support either OpenJDK 16 or a pre-release
> of OpenJDK 17 in bullseye only for avoiding an OpenJDK bootstrap in
> bullseye-backports would sound very wrong.

I agree that shipping a non LTS release of OpenJDK (12 to 16) is a bad
idea. Shipping OpenJDK 17 is worth considering though.


> My suggestion:
> 
> No OpenJDK other than 11 is shipped in bullseye.
> 
> If at the time of the bullseye release openjdk-17 in unstable is ready 
> to migrate to testing except for the freeze, this means that:
> 1. it will migrate at the first migration of bookworm, and
> 2. the binaries will be installable on all architectures in bullseye
> 
> The bootstrap could then be avoided by verbatim copying of this
> openjdk-17 sources and binaries for all architectures from bookworm
> to bullseye-backports.
> 
> Subsequent updates of openjdk-17 in bullseye-backports would then follow 
> the normal backports rules.

If openjdk-17 can't be shipped in bullseyes even with prominent warnings
that it's unsupported, then this sounds like a good idea.

Emmanuel Bourg

Back to linux.debian.maint.java | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2021-02-02 19:30 +0100
  Re: OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2021-02-06 23:50 +0100
    Re: OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de> - 2021-02-07 00:50 +0100
      Re: OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2021-02-07 11:10 +0100
    Re: OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2021-02-07 12:10 +0100
      Re: #975016 -  OpenJDK 17 support state for Bullseye Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2022-02-03 15:10 +0100
        Re: #975016 -  OpenJDK 17 support state for Bullseye Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de> - 2022-02-03 16:10 +0100
          Bug#975016: #975016 -  OpenJDK 17 support state for Bullseye Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> - 2022-02-10 11:40 +0100
            Bug#975016: #975016 - OpenJDK 17 support state for Bullseye Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2022-02-12 03:10 +0100
              Bug#975016: #975016 - OpenJDK 17 support state for Bullseye Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2022-08-17 21:40 +0200
                Bug#975016: #975016 - OpenJDK 17 support state for Bullseye Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2022-08-18 19:10 +0200

csiph-web