Groups > linux.debian.maint.java > #12732

Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf

From	Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.ports.arm, linux.debian.maint.java, linux.debian.devel.release
Subject	Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf
Date	2024-03-26 11:40 +0100
Message-ID	<ImcnM-1N2D-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<GArKF-c2RS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <GArKF-c2RS-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

It seems that some of the dependency chains for packages that are still
waiting to be rebuilt on armel,armhf now end at openjdk-17, which is the
default Java version for most architectures and Build-Depends on itself
(with an alternative dependency on openjdk-16, but that no longer exists).
evolution-data-server -> libphonenumber-dev is an example.

Are the ARM or Java teams intending to re-bootstrap openjdk-17 somehow?

Or do maintainers of packages that build both a C/C++ library and Java
bindings from a single source package need to disable its Java bindings
on the affected architectures, either temporarily or permanently?

openjdk-21 is in a similar situation, build-depending on itself, while
openjdk-22 and openjdk-23 build-depend on -21 and -22 respectively.
Presumably once we have a single OpenJDK version that is installable,
it would be possible to step through 18,19,20,21 building each version
with the previous one.

In the -ports world, hppa doesn't have Java anyway, while m68k, powerpc
and sh4 seem to have had a re-bootstrap at some point; so I think it's
only the release architectures armel and armhf that have a problem here.

    smcv

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

Thread

Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2024-03-26 11:40 +0100
  Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2024-03-26 23:40 +0100
    Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 23:50 +0100
      Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@qvest-digital.com> - 2024-03-27 00:50 +0100
        Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@qvest-digital.com> - 2024-03-27 03:30 +0100
        Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 03:30 +0100
    Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2024-03-27 16:40 +0100
      Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2024-03-27 17:30 +0100
        Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2024-03-27 23:50 +0100
          Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2024-03-28 15:00 +0100
            Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2024-03-28 22:30 +0100
  Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2024-03-27 04:30 +0100
    Bug#1036884: transition: time64_t - openjdk-17 needs re-bootstrap on armel,armhf Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@qvest-digital.com> - 2024-03-27 05:50 +0100

csiph-web