Bug#593627: java-common: please use openjdk as default jdk on powerpcspe

08-19-2010, 05:40 PM

Package: java-common
Version: 0.39
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch sid
User: debian-powerpcspe@breakpoint.cc
Usertags: powerpcspe

openjdk is built and seems to work

Sebastian
>From acf94f0bb47b151b9fde8b07948b5194dd3d81de Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:30:02 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] User openjdk as default jdk on powerpcspe

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
debian/rules | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index cbe5bb1..3a4d810 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ provides = java java2 java5
dversion = 1.5-$(jrel)
jvmdir = java-gcj

-ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), alpha amd64 armel i386 ia64 lpia mipsel powerpc s390 sparc sh4))
+ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), alpha amd64 armel i386 ia64 lpia mipsel powerpc powerpcspe s390 sparc sh4))
p_jre = openjdk-6-jre
p_jhl = openjdk-6-jre-headless
p_jdk = openjdk-6-jdk
--
1.5.6.5

08-21-2010, 02:13 PM

>
> Sebastian

Hi

Personally I am okay with doing it and it is the intention of the Java
Team to make openjdk the default on all architectures. The question is
if we should do it now or after Squeeze (CC'ed the release team) for
their comments.

~Niels

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAkxv3w0ACgkQVCqoiq1YlqwaPwCgiBn35OUchz cwhAZNAFSo7Fk/
ENwAnAxg6Y8nH5ID7svLbRY6AVdzwDLl
=jgd+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4C6FDF0E.6090009@thykier.net">http://lists.debian.org/4C6FDF0E.6090009@thykier.net

08-21-2010, 08:33 PM

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Personally I am okay with doing it and it is the intention of the Java
> Team to make openjdk the default on all architectures. The question is
> if we should do it now or after Squeeze (CC'ed the release team) for
> their comments.
>

I'd suggest after squeeze would probably be preferred.

Thanks,
Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li A40F862E

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100821203319.GH17464@halon.org.uk">http://lists.debian.org/20100821203319.GH17464@halon.org.uk

08-22-2010, 12:41 PM

* Niels Thykier | 2010-08-21 16:13:34 [+0200]:

>Personally I am okay with doing it and it is the intention of the Java
>Team to make openjdk the default on all architectures. The question is
>if we should do it now or after Squeeze (CC'ed the release team) for
>their comments.

The problem with the default-jdk is that most architectures have openjdk
as default. Some packages however don't build with default-jdk !=
openjdk. One of them on top of my head is jffi without openjdk-6 [0]
with [1].

openjdk is allready default jdk for all main architecture except hppa,
kfreebsd-* and recently mips. All of them don't have openjdk-6 built.
openjdk-6 as it does not have architecture specific code but it might
trigger bugs in different areas. I guess that why it no longer builds on
mips.

The problem with packages like default-jdk is that they pull in
different packages on different systems leading to different behaviors
and bugs. I don't like it

[0] http://buildd.debian-ports.org/fetch.php?&pkg=jffi&ver=1.0.2-6&arch=powerpcspe&stamp=1281015166&file=log&as=r aw
[1] http://buildd.debian-ports.org/fetch.php?&pkg=jffi&ver=1.0.2-6&arch=powerpcspe&stamp=1282286285&file=log&as=r aw

>~Niels

Sebastian

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100822124149.GA18296@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.c c">http://lists.debian.org/20100822124149.GA18296@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.c c

08-22-2010, 01:44 PM

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 09:33:19PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Personally I am okay with doing it and it is the intention of the Java
> > Team to make openjdk the default on all architectures. The question is
> > if we should do it now or after Squeeze (CC'ed the release team) for
> > their comments.
> >
>
> I'd suggest after squeeze would probably be preferred.
>

Oops, didn't see that this was a arch specific thing. In that case,
we're probably happy to leave it up to the maintainer.

Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li A40F862E

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100822134402.GJ17464@halon.org.uk">http://lists.debian.org/20100822134402.GJ17464@halon.org.uk

08-22-2010, 02:01 PM

On Sun Aug 22 14:41, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Niels Thykier | 2010-08-21 16:13:34 [+0200]:
>
> >Personally I am okay with doing it and it is the intention of the Java
> >Team to make openjdk the default on all architectures. The question is
> >if we should do it now or after Squeeze (CC'ed the release team) for
> >their comments.
>
> The problem with the default-jdk is that most architectures have openjdk
> as default. Some packages however don't build with default-jdk !=
> openjdk. One of them on top of my head is jffi without openjdk-6 [0]
> with [1].

Then that's a bug, that package must build-depend on openjdk specifically.

> The problem with packages like default-jdk is that they pull in
> different packages on different systems leading to different behaviors
> and bugs. I don't like it

default-jdk is there so that whenever we add a new arch to openjdk, or have to
remove it, we don't have to update every single java package from openjdk [foo,
bar, baz] | gcj-4.4 [quux]. Most java packages work with all the jdks we support
and don't need to know about architecture-specific issues.

Matt

08-22-2010, 03:02 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

tags 593627 + pending
thanks

On 2010-08-22 15:44, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 09:33:19PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 04:13:34PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> Personally I am okay with doing it and it is the intention of the Java
>>> Team to make openjdk the default on all architectures. The question is
>>> if we should do it now or after Squeeze (CC'ed the release team) for
>>> their comments.
>>>
>>
>> I'd suggest after squeeze would probably be preferred.
>>
>
> Oops, didn't see that this was a arch specific thing. In that case,
> we're probably happy to leave it up to the maintainer.
>
> Neil

Hi

I have committed the patch to the SVN. I intend to upload this after
java-common 0.39 migrates to testing (waiting for the mips binaries).

If "probably happy" is not "happy enough"; let me know and I will delay
it until after Squeeze.

Thank you in advance,
~Niels

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAkxxO/4ACgkQVCqoiq1YlqyHvgCfTJ0IKR+b4VVOZgKhvnXBpM8V
5kMAn2uSuzaGAAOR5/u71ilexNBd5vap
=71aL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4C713BFE.9050408@thykier.net">http://lists.debian.org/4C713BFE.9050408@thykier.net

08-22-2010, 05:44 PM

* Matthew Johnson | 2010-08-22 15:01:23 [+0100]:

>On Sun Aug 22 14:41, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> The problem with the default-jdk is that most architectures have openjdk
>> as default. Some packages however don't build with default-jdk !=
>> openjdk. One of them on top of my head is jffi without openjdk-6 [0]
>> with [1].
>
>Then that's a bug, that package must build-depend on openjdk specifically.

Okay so you want me to open bugs or do you want to do it yourself? I
have no access to wanna-build db and this would speed-up such a query

Besides jffi I just stumbled over lwjgl [0] having the same issue.

>> The problem with packages like default-jdk is that they pull in
>> different packages on different systems leading to different behaviors
>> and bugs. I don't like it

>
>default-jdk is there so that whenever we add a new arch to openjdk, or have to
>remove it, we don't have to update every single java package from openjdk [foo,
>bar, baz] | gcj-4.4 [quux]. Most java packages work with all the jdks we support
>and don't need to know about architecture-specific issues.

I see where you are going with this. So we check once in a while which
packages FTBFS with gcj and depend on default-jdk.

[0] http://buildd.debian-ports.org/build.php?pkg=lwjgl&arch=powerpcspe&ver=2.5%2Bdfsg-1

>Matt

Sebastian

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100822174426.GA19581@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.c c">http://lists.debian.org/20100822174426.GA19581@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.c c

08-22-2010, 06:01 PM

* Niels Thykier | 2010-08-22 17:02:22 [+0200]:

>I have committed the patch to the SVN. I intend to upload this after
>java-common 0.39 migrates to testing (waiting for the mips binaries).

Thanks for that. You don't have to upload the package just due to this
change. I uploaded a changed version into unreleased distribution on
d-p. So once you upload a new version it would nice to have this change
included because my package will be superseded by yours.

>
>Thank you in advance,
>~Niels

Sebastian

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100822180130.GB19581@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.c c">http://lists.debian.org/20100822180130.GB19581@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.c c