Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!news.servidellagleba.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Thorsten Glaser 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: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 05:50:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: Wookey X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org Wed Mar 27 04:45:13 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.449 Reply-To: Thorsten Glaser , 1036884@bugs.debian.org Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Cc: Debian Release Team X-Debian-Pr-Message: followup 1036884 X-Debian-Pr-Package: release.debian.org X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWNZUmMEzrme6eR9BjrYhIefl0dD26zx2Et/B4i2kNljMyroY+HZ+lqdV5tgvNkLJcLpkjz5W2TturAOEW+lfASdUERheP06w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw+cA9gXb/I0VtIAzr80h9wR8cU3XN3oD8aj55268vD9K2PmLxr f4jc08XmVsS/b7J9aDM7GEKxt20o03pymHJ/4deMEIiAxYrrXuCKxTzDo+dFIXc= X-Google-SMTP-Source: AGHT+IFw6m0KAvw0mQ79mYd9t4IXaL/uFcM0xpjFn4UjPy9lKYZxTCwln2oKSj9DoJxYshNuNlKu4g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5123:b0:414:8ab1:9bcb with SMTP id o35-20020a05600c512300b004148ab19bcbmr141778wms.5.1711514443113; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Content-Language: de-DE-1901 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Debian-Message: from BTS X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1830171 List-ID: List-URL: Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 80 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: Simon McVittie , 1036884@bugs.debian.org, debian-arm@lists.debian.org, debian-java@lists.debian.org X-Original-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 05:40:41 +0100 (CET) X-Original-Message-ID: <3b3e36c4-5570-a9b3-c11d-455d31804a32@qvest-digital.com> X-Original-References: <20240327031748.GN4300@mail.wookware.org> <20240327031748.GN4300@mail.wookware.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:1191971 linux.debian.ports.arm:13927 linux.debian.maint.java:12739 linux.debian.devel.release:123415 On Wed, 27 Mar 2024, Wookey wrote: >I looked at this last week, but got stuck because openjdk-17's >build-deps included graphviz Build-Depends-Indep: graphviz, pandoc You don=E2=80=99t need that. Use dpkg-checkbuilddeps -B, or manual inspection of the .dsc (packages.d.o does show the difference between adep and idep but not the profiles, unfortunately, and these can be key in ordering decisions). >another blocked chain with ghostscript,cups and libgtk2 conflicting >about their t64 status. You do need the t64 versions of all that, and the latest openjdk-17 fixed the issue with libcups2 (Ubuntu initially forgot to move that to t64 while Debian did that early, and openjdk-?? followed the former). > apt : Depends: libgnutls30 (>=3D 3.8.1) but it is not going to be install= ed You should get that rebuilt, yes. On the other hand, if everything else is falling into place, it=E2=80=99s not a problem for apt to uninstall itself just in that one build chroot =E2=98=BB > libasound2t64 : Breaks: libasound2 (< 1.2.11-1) but 1.2.10-3 is to be ins= talled > libcups2t64 : Breaks: libcups2 (< 2.4.7-1.2) but 2.4.7-1+b1 is to be inst= alled > libnettle8t64 : Breaks: libnettle8 (< 3.9.1-2.2) but 3.9.1-2 is to be ins= talled These are fine. > libcups2 : Depends: libgnutls30 (>=3D 3.8.1) but it is not going to be in= stalled Force that away; nothing from this is actually used during the openjdk build in a way sufficient to impact the build. >But dose now says there is a solution, unlike last week. Oh, dose=E2=80=A6 right=E2=80=A6 here I was checking all of them manually ^= ^ (which did give me a better impression of where to break the cycles and what to upload earlier). >> openjdk-21 is in a similar situation, build-depending on itself, while >> openjdk-22 and openjdk-23 build-depend on -21 and -22 respectively. >I presume the same, but don't actually know how old a java you can use >to bootstrap each newer java. Is it always just one version? AIUI it=E2=80=99s always just one version; I know it was so until 17, but I don=E2=80=99t think this has loosened (I asked in IRC, but got no answer until I went to sleep). >> 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. You=E2=80=99d have to patch them to both address the t64 issues and make it imply nocheck (or quinn-diff doesn=E2=80=99t pick it up as installable). It=E2=80=99s best to get at least 17 and 21 (which AIUI is the one we=E2=80=99ll want for trixie?) built this way. I think, unless users complain, we can these days go without 8 and probably even without 11. (You=E2=80=99d be surprised at the amount of users wanting 8, so I now provide those in a private repo of mine, but so far amd64/i386-only has sufficed for those. For the purposes for which 8 is still in sid, dropping armel and armhf will _most likely_ also suffice; ELTS still wants them, but rebuilt in jessie and stretch chroots so there is no re=E2=80=90 bootstrapping to be done.)