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

Hi Team

At the Ubuntu Developer Summit last week we had a session to discuss
whether the current development release for Ubuntu was the right point
in time to switch default-java to OpenJDK7.

As OpenJDK7 and Oracle Java 7 are much closer in terms of
codebase/compatibility than OpenJDK6/Sun Java 6 the consensus from the
session was that this would be a good switch to make as this release of
Ubuntu will be supported for 5 years.

However, this was qualified by the need to test compatibility both at
build time and run time to support this transition. The state of Java7
on ARM is also key for Ubuntu (and will feed into this decision).

I have conducted a Ubuntu precise rebuild test with default-jdk switched
to use openjdk-7 and at the moment there are around ~100 packages
which fail to build from source (see [1]).

Is anyone in the team making Java 7 transition plans for Debian? Or
indeed does anyone have any opinion on whether this release of Debian is
the right point in time to switch default-java to openjdk-7?

My current 'feel' is that there is a lot of work to make this transition
happen (and for Ubuntu this would need to be completed by early Feb 2012
due to release milestones associated with new features).

Let me know what you think

Cheers

James


[0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-p-java
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=java7-ftbfs

- --
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOvQdjAAoJEL/srsug59jDKMoQALWipnnh8tSkmEl1XwkmY2fI
I4dVheN7IbT9Q37ERQw2MG2M23vPRae3ukx5u4gjvuA4dJvvJ6 U8vUxFNGj60dov
ABxYACqyefTAusIF4GJKvIMg8GgYP7POhxWquPUGKzFiPisMi7 5+dqpMaDh9hhlm
QTYsPS0J9Pijl+7yhJE77mJ8axN8LbrMKWyWkNss6YxnCOxy+9 V0DxAgpgvTtF9O
nwo9e33qWzH3Krng58DxkroVjwVlJxC/XcvX67v8eWpAAraffzu+x5SLYGmvRfoE
TPAHdaLrE2dn66OYF4pQZM6XtF9IF5dhCRYSSgKNuD4l9kdpBx GYd13ZipM+WmQU
K+9HFm6wIlE4jV28doT5xy1XqqAW3eiUZWIUNpoAZUDeWzk/+N17CEX9481oCc0f
Hwm5/Fwfr80TtyP9pmLDOztv/8HeJlT8+M3PN8dsdCLEAiaAre/ctc/tgs62TUn3
2N11bTQAETeRnKMyhiZDMtBFo1qJuTBs2M7/ZAgNEWye7rEP3lJPK7n+Faj+QYvd
gOw57FJbd+QAKZbxWaykzWRqPmB4mgXY4acQsDP+x/OU8k7OkLID6q8nT54TsHBo
5F/3DDF77V0nPdIYPR7gTLngRbui94nea4YbaROGUp4Z6Qce9e6Ax h5pqjCNXfrQ
qF3Fhy+UOyEZuLKQZLG6
=KwUU
-----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: 4EBD0763.7070500@ubuntu.com">http://lists.debian.org/4EBD0763.7070500@ubuntu.com

* James Page:

> As OpenJDK7 and Oracle Java 7 are much closer in terms of
> codebase/compatibility than OpenJDK6/Sun Java 6 the consensus from the
> session was that this would be a good switch to make as this release of
> Ubuntu will be supported for 5 years.

Yes, that appears to be a good reason. JDK 6 is EOLed in mid-2012, so
that's another concern.

OpenJDK 7 is also easier to build that OpenJDK 6. (I'm not sure if this
applies to the IcedTea variants.)

> I have conducted a Ubuntu precise rebuild test with default-jdk switched
> to use openjdk-7 and at the moment there are around ~100 packages
> which fail to build from source (see [1]).

> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=java7-ftbfs

I get an "Error ID: OOPS-313e91354c2b7ac8927a9e63d54ff035".

What I've noticed so far are tools which cannot parse the rt.jar from
OpenJDK 7.

> Is anyone in the team making Java 7 transition plans for Debian? Or
> indeed does anyone have any opinion on whether this release of Debian is
> the right point in time to switch default-java to openjdk-7?

wheezy will be released after mid-2012, so the Java 7 transition is
pretty much a unavoidable.

--
Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 82fwhuhjdz.fsf@mid.bfk.de">http://lists.debian.org/82fwhuhjdz.fsf@mid.bfk.de

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

On 11/11/11 13:35, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> [1]
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=java7-ftbfs
> I get an "Error ID: OOPS-313e91354c2b7ac8927a9e63d54ff035".

Bah - so do I - lemme check that out - there are under 100 of them so
thats frustrating.

- --
James Page
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Team
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOvSclAAoJEL/srsug59jDPFQQAJDCdGHznFiNJiAXj207t44h
5Piu/dks9OQu+qHw6BU42DtQraQXwFXJM9Xp3jAa2IrUyH20/XdgDFd0D+EtY1P4
/wn8Z6Ek1AKGcFA9lE5G3oMRI0hp5ShxMVd2OYqtoSMU+logqoG/NKB4UaPZUGcG
l73VoWagDxZaj6WS9sGwC1PyTWUvMUlp5zIbl8Ctjyd3VJN+pa m6QU8Qo5CCpB+l
hSJDU+4P9gl1N4w+TNvhRYOyktfMDwYyqv2QmDxg4DswEDVnwz 2kP6u/g1sHRBsy
+6yeLpSSgesPmyDRc5LR9ceeO/zoiKEnb2KImFFvzl9PLVnEOh699tciyIZXAgMS
N1WuO+XUsaC5bJ2fC+aW/PHWAYqJV34za2jszAY0ceuNl6Jjxm/6SHTwynsC9fZr
fbgTejbogogYBirkdvDAwHJbbKvWnhrl1pwO37D/BrO/iahRwQ5lHifnl+FX5jEK
9LiGyDNDI3YN12JFkTMYOHFN52ypNePMeVwsdzT3fOxMzF6/5mDqGYI0GOJdPiCy
Nb1Fo5nb9ggi/4jrIYqDuacMomp+HJg7FZoeDCNV0WW8KH9nxFN6xuDDqYjRLJb B
ckQc0QbELezWxBy+JNpefLk273Lxt9TH3Hnr6FnaFSzgFE/MpTc0CqzK2X3badQ3
VTSJMOO6ttf9sUBGJYiv
=sgH0
-----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: 4EBD2725.5050006@canonical.com">http://lists.debian.org/4EBD2725.5050006@canonical.com

Hi James,

Le vendredi 11 novembre 2011 12:30:43, James Page a écrit :
> I have conducted a Ubuntu precise rebuild test with default-jdk switched
> to use openjdk-7 and at the moment there are around ~100 packages
> which fail to build from source (see [1]).

Launchpad seems to timeout...

Have you noticed a common FTBFS pattern for all this packages ? Or all failure
seems differents ?

> Is anyone in the team making Java 7 transition plans for Debian? Or
> indeed does anyone have any opinion on whether this release of Debian is
> the right point in time to switch default-java to openjdk-7?

I'm using openjdk-7 on daily basis without any problem (desktop and
development env.) but I haven't yet do any load testing on production
applications so I cannot provide real(tm) feedback.

> My current 'feel' is that there is a lot of work to make this transition
> happen (and for Ubuntu this would need to be completed by early Feb 2012
> due to release milestones associated with new features).

Yes, fixing 100+ FTBFS is a huge work and spare time of contributors is
scarce... For example, there is still 26 unfixed RC bugs for Debian Java Team
(not counting Java packages not under team control...).

Cheers,
--
Damien

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

On 14/11/11 18:46, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Le vendredi 11 novembre 2011 12:30:43, James Page a écrit :
>> I have conducted a Ubuntu precise rebuild test with default-jdk
>> switched to use openjdk-7 and at the moment there are around ~100
>> packages which fail to build from source (see [1]).
>
> Launchpad seems to timeout...

Try this URL instead - filters a little harder before searching for tags.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?search=Search&field.bug_reporter=james-page&field.tag=java7-ftbfs

>
> Have you noticed a common FTBFS pattern for all this packages ? Or
> all failure seems differents ?

There are some common trends - for example I have seen the following
issues:

1) Failures due to source file encoding and default behaviour with javac
2) Packaging issues where the package depends on default-jdk but
JAVA_HOME is set to point at /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk
3) Changes to the JDBC API's causing source incompatibility
4) Removal of internal API's causing issues for packages which use them

Cheers

James

- --
James Page
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Team
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOwqBpAAoJEL/srsug59jDnzQP/2Ye+R/EDKekhr8QRMrb7co7
MMBuRAp19hMcxAnAzLkxXPzJ0WW48dBj3AMezzLoSsuD4TEwmq Jlq94JXJfAqybh
DqRd+ZFtEux9NMhPy1h/q7P8A2j3heucOfXadkIkGBAEaES75LBWeNvpnJycpJ2F
IfHbF9Tr9fmNyLX+wBlrculFqU16p96ey87ehO/ZHx3tRESsp9ve5sHj3GJLS1XT
sQnQ71MgJrMRmYl5DIab1s4ecI/72vuBe4Pq+F+qat3S2ETF1W3jBcX4lTLPn5k9
odeF80ZD3fBo2QgjFJb7fSRsoX2Uts2Yk85ODzkZN1TkkWRfo1 7nf+tOPb4gHEJx
19H6fuNAklVn6DH+hNPe9HXWG3EmYLKC3P2wh99nI3KjSIEbwq +ma0FMFxg79ZY9
wXRqDVDC0BTTbicP5kd1MZxTaFkUtovPSSgQF5Qf+e6+auBWru BQEy3ACm/cAgNU
fPlt5ejaukQXPwYSwncwa1q6w4eW97p3FNHbrTNeR5zEf/RIKf5A3qSj3IFkUqO7
b/C7bqrwVPKQRzM2CpOOSwhQi2SLw+74OYAmY5IBEIbW6XmIZFQZ 9mxmmnxcAsw9
NBkzbx4qXSLZqGHxbF8iuDxHLYKxp9AozwLq+FJJJDv9GnKtEC IMsbDb1CdRNGjw
Dd8bSxJk5CstedHpScHh
=MIa3
-----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: 4EC2A06D.9080904@canonical.com">http://lists.debian.org/4EC2A06D.9080904@canonical.com

On 2011-11-15 18:25, James Page wrote:
> On 14/11/11 18:46, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
>> Hi James,
>
> [...]
>

Hi,

>> Have you noticed a common FTBFS pattern for all this packages ? Or
>> all failure seems differents ?
>
> There are some common trends - for example I have seen the following
> issues:
>
> 1) Failures due to source file encoding and default behaviour with javac
> 2) Packaging issues where the package depends on default-jdk but
> JAVA_HOME is set to point at /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk
> 3) Changes to the JDBC API's causing source incompatibility
> 4) Removal of internal API's causing issues for packages which use them
>
> Cheers
>
> James
>

2) is a FTBFS in Debian (or it should be already), because
java-6-openjdk does not exist anymore (it is java-6-openjdk-$arch).
Feel free to file (serious) bugs for that in Debian.
I think Ubuntu may have "lowered" requirements here but I am not 100%
sure[1]. At least it could be the reason why you do not see the FTBFS
with the normal openjdk-6 in Ubuntu.

~Niels

[1]

"""
java-common (0.43ubuntu1) precise; urgency=low

* Keep old jvm symlinks in the openjdk-6-jre-headless package.

java-common (0.43) unstable; urgency=low

* Depend on the multiarch aware openjdk-6-jre-headless.
* Default to openjdk-6 on ppc64.
* update-java-alternatives: Substitute <jname> with <jname>-<arch>.
-- Matthias Klose <email address hidden> Thu, 20 Oct 2011 [...]

"""


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4ECB4A80.9080801@thykier.net">http://lists.debian.org/4ECB4A80.9080801@thykier.net

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

Hi Team

On 14/11/11 23:46, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> Have you noticed a common FTBFS pattern for all this packages ? Or all
failure
> seems differents ?
I've spent the morning doing more analysis on the bugs detected during
this rebuild and it looks like there are some distinct patterns to the
failures.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?search=Search&field.bug_reporter=james-page&field.tags_combinator=ALL&field.tag=java7-ftbfs+encoding
(40)

error: unmappable character for encoding ASCII either during javac
or javadoc.

This issue constitutes that largest number of build failures;
something has changed with respect to what OpenJDK 7 considers to be an
encoding error rather than warning.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?search=Search&field.bug_reporter=james-page&field.tags_combinator=ALL&field.tag=java7-ftbfs+api
(14)

Package does not implement new public API requirements for Java 7;
normally something JDBC related and relatively easy to fix.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?search=Search&field.bug_reporter=james-page&field.tags_combinator=ALL&field.tag=java7-ftbfs+lang
(10)

Some sort of language handling change (typically generics handling)
causes the build failure e.g:

error: name clash: boxedFor(Class<? extends Boxed>,long) in
org.gnome.gdk.Plumbing and boxedFor(Class<?>,long) in
org.gnome.glib.Plumbing have the same erasure, yet neither hides the other

Again needs fixing upstream - I suspect that these again will follow
specific patterns with stock fixes.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?search=Search&field.bug_reporter=james-page&field.tags_combinator=ALL&field.tag=java7-ftbfs+maven
(6)

Maven 2 not parsing warning error message causing failure:
could not parse error message: warning: [options] bootstrap class
path not set in conjunction with -source 1.5

Bug in Maven 2? Might be easily resolvable.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?search=Search&field.bug_reporter=james-page&field.tags_combinator=ALL&field.tag=java7-ftbfs+priv-api
(4)

Package makes use of private API no longer present or changed in
Java 7; harder to fix as requires use of different API or significant
refactoring; best worked out with upstream.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?search=Search&field.bug_reporter=james-page&field.tags_combinator=ALL&field.tag=java7-ftbfs+java-home
(4)

Problems with JAVA_HOME in rules not matching default-java i.e.
using openjdk6 explicitly, fixable in packaging

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?search=Search&field.bug_reporter=james-page&field.tags_combinator=ALL&field.tag=java7-ftbfs+test
(3)

Failure in test suite caused build failure.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?search=Search&field.bug_reporter=james-page&field.tags_combinator=ALL&field.tag=java7-ftbfs+fop
(3)

[exec] org.apache.fop.apps.FOPException: Can't load standard
profile: sRGB.pf

I think this is related to
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=641530 in openjdk-6

I'm aiming to start working through this list next week.

I'll re-confirm each against Debian unstable and aim to get fixes into
Debian first. How would people feel about switching default-java in
experimental to OpenJDK7 to help support this transition?

Anything that can't be resolved above the individual package level i.e.
with a fix in OpenJDK/Maven or suchlike I will raise as a bug in Debian
(and upstream if required) for tracking purposes.

Cheers

James

P.S. Any help much appreciated!

- --
James Page
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Team
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOz5AOAAoJEL/srsug59jDXYUP/3mxCEL+33UbvugygTerWxkn
RgaJUhDqD4pJcJHVP1U+erZoKqYslCIIMgW27GzZzaWl4mXFPp +xVE65sPwP4lYi
pjEq+L9W6pdzfbeI4atCzyZJgZPBEYDYW/B/ojxbo4xSZ+9t52WhGSUHEtKUVHFi
N/9/fqB47fqk6ds3U8b+CYeZVV2irD6zaJbQ6Rz15pKsCrMQlIRB32 juZNHpP9ui
H/u6WHi4+AV+lTDtRev4B66oAdeSLLTTKQAImE093L/d2PgldgVAdQQ41FgcwMZZ
WWjtvHDxQ2k7ybzfUIDsNtH6ZXmqmMXbT9UGg2kQ0FGQB0WVOv KPjDkMkiubMq9u
DOxAjHrQUYm6y9MmjjRbSrzSXqpdmk8pbZzeayBy1IKuCAJiYX j4hcS9DhlqsiI/
6rSAe+pIhoiulAbJSD7OjMopbZ58Jg2UMIHD2HrJsYKFJmE5iv 2zEnlZXszfRlE6
/xZDs7WdMPQyHn0Ia1dbGYJ6lDe4yWr6NZq4DJomExx4/FaEZel8/aK8RuHV1WBj
9WHz6ms4kcrFDRI54r3/I4h+sjBIQo8Y4fBN27rr3iY7CK0oPj5ao2DtzQrFY+x3
wG29Pl616mktCQ/E6k29KJiVZMJJZ3D7xHc5BehN9kY/7+q6NS5HCLFyiWIvEeHI
oVf1ObZzsyM/zfOy3ZPE
=jYJa
-----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: 4ECF900E.4010907@canonical.com">http://lists.debian.org/4ECF900E.4010907@canonical.com

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

On 25/11/11 12:54, James Page wrote:
> I'll re-confirm each against Debian unstable and aim to get fixes into
> Debian first.

I re-considered this today and I think it puts unnecessary pressure on
Debian (and the kind folk who would sponsor me) so I'll target Ubuntu
first (as this has the pending deadline in the next two months) and
submit bug reports back to Debian with patches.

- --
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJO3QkRAAoJEL/srsug59jDMxcQAJunHwS1TFuNpSpExgHy54Wd
SfvBX/X/aSD4wzOk1mF5claZsppdomPT0vxnwF+hJvYOaJQIIk5NlkiuJb IlmRPV
M/zhakvgKKxIkBo1OWkV3s0pD76tQbvzK0Yqaa0IqtL0KOKj7Qs9 wRiiSgEAfjV7
2zaJ2iU8D9hvGb1Jelq3bdeKrMqt2laS6ETQGtN+0Njv9i/G5MMhuQnaRmB1eDtE
mzXw2ziiJLEkjXR1Ld24I6AHP/unfo20Vo+Xo5wbudOIAeNpChyDY9D4cyRxLd6D
caUVu74xL2aTtWndeAXXiBNKYFEm9onUopYUj/jsuoYU/DQRQDZaCoJw9ViROtAo
4Eq0QAxsJZz98sqv3SAdebKGey4C6jX69Sq2BBNX3ub43LdwrY bjY/Oq2E03vmT2
AsIKhb54z79NXn1HyYRBxaPjogTJqY5sH+LsWGFueZrY+lrl+X Bow66/kMlxCSe0
e92h8H5o4Z5Hli3fQxiXyNcsP8vjMCT6AZkLsZFWCk7Cs3BNrf GkhSg/PdOUjdzN
cwbDHuDV403ZuT4znZLTy6YkxZnu77Kyi2e2+rOFQdWjo6pSlH 2dA3HU2I5q3uD1
H8LGGgqsfHiaWA/pYuo5Wp4o8EVjt541f/cx2QbzF8mOUsrp/P1cbHh6n2PJq1Sy
nG8NSp6mBNdQBBIWCzRj
=xilN
-----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: 4EDD0912.9030803@ubuntu.com">http://lists.debian.org/4EDD0912.9030803@ubuntu.com