Groups > linux.debian.maint.java > #10094

Re: OpenJFX 9 integration

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.java
Subject	Re: OpenJFX 9 integration
Date	Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:20:01 +0200
Message-ID	<uBFzb-6MV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<uzUji-3ov-407@gated-at.bofh.it> <uBBOV-45j-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	debian-java@lists.debian.org
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-java-request@lists.debian.org Tue Oct 17 19:12:52 2017
Old-Return-Path	<ebourg@apache.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-10.521 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, BODY_8BITS=1.5, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight	using cached result; rate: -7
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
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/20461
List-ID	<debian-java.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/e4d2854d-011e-0f97-4f6b-a4eeb7955b74@apache.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	17
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date	Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:12:08 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID	<e4d2854d-011e-0f97-4f6b-a4eeb7955b74@apache.org>
X-Original-References	<7648af40-f4a8-e1f6-dd17-8c6f9deb5b05@apache.org> <fc59eb7e-f1b1-1ae0-277f-017299f57f39@gmail.com>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:10094

Show key headers only | View raw

Le 17/10/2017 à 17:18, 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan a écrit :

> Although I like Plan C, it has more issues like:
> 
>   * Circular build-dependency between openjdk and openjfx (or there is already one?)

True but I don't think this is really a problem. The OpenJFX integration
could be disabled in openjdk-9 when building the package for the first
time on an architecture.

>   * Strange versioning pattern of openjdk rebuilds. (9~b181-5+<openjfx-version> vs 9~b181-5+b1)

I think the openjdk-9 version will simply not include the openjfx
version. The version of openjfx could be documented with the Built-Using
field.

Emmanuel Bourg

Thread

OpenJFX 9 integration Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2017-10-13 00:40 +0200
  Re: OpenJFX 9 integration 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan <seamlikok@gmail.com> - 2017-10-17 17:20 +0200
    Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2017-10-17 21:20 +0200
  Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2017-10-22 13:20 +0200
    Re: OpenJFX 9 integration 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan <seamlikok@gmail.com> - 2017-10-22 17:30 +0200
      Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> - 2017-10-22 21:00 +0200
        Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Mykola Nikishov <mn@mn.com.ua> - 2017-10-22 23:00 +0200
          Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> - 2017-10-22 23:10 +0200
    Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2017-10-23 01:10 +0200
      Re: OpenJFX 9 integration 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan <seamlikok@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 09:10 +0200
        Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2017-10-24 12:20 +0200
      Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl> - 2018-04-04 07:20 +0200
        Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2018-04-04 10:00 +0200
          Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2018-04-04 10:30 +0200
            Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Bas Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl> - 2018-04-04 11:20 +0200
              Re: OpenJFX 9 integration tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> - 2018-04-04 15:50 +0200
            Re: OpenJFX 9 integration Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> - 2018-04-04 16:10 +0200
  Re: OpenJFX 9 integration David Goodenough <david.goodenough@linkchoose.co.uk> - 2017-10-24 07:40 +0200

csiph-web