[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?)
From: |
Efraim Flashner |
Subject: |
Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?) |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Feb 2023 13:03:35 +0200 |
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 08:19:08PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> Am Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 07:51:56PM +0100 schrieb Andreas Enge:
> > Actually the patch has already been applied to openjdk13, if I am not
> > mistaken. So I do not understand how the source could be built in master
> > then, while the exact same code (?!) fails on core-updates...
>
> Well, there is a somewhat hidden difference.
> core-updates introduces
> "openjdk-10-hotspot-pointer-comparison.patch"
> "openjdk-10-hotspot-stack-size.patch"
> to openjdk10.
>
> openjdk11 is a package of its own without the patch.
>
> openjdk12 uses the newly defined make-openjdk to start from openjdk11,
> overwriting the source together with openjdk-10-hotspot-stack-size.patch
> in core-updates, and without the patch in master. (And it uses an obscure
> tarball instead of a git checkout - why?)
>
> openjdk13 has the same code in core-updates and master:
> (define-public openjdk13
> (make-openjdk openjdk12 "13.0.13"
> "0pxf4dlig61k0pg7amg4mi919hzam7nzwckry01avgq1wj8ambji"))
> So in core-updates it inherits the patch from openjdk12, in master
> it does not (I think). And then I suppose it passes the patch on to all
> its descendants.
It's definitely possible that the master->core-updates merge messed with
the package definitions and the inheritance and I didn't notice it.
> The following seems to work and create source for openjdk13 and later:
> (define-public openjdk13
> (make-openjdk openjdk12 "13.0.13"
> "0pxf4dlig61k0pg7amg4mi919hzam7nzwckry01avgq1wj8ambji"
> (source (origin
> (inherit (package-source base))
> (patches '())))))
>
> Okay to push if I manage to build current openjdk with it?
Yeah, that's probably fine.
> Is it necessary to keep all these version of openjdk and to bootstrap
> version n with version n-1?
Probably? I assume if you can cut some out that'd be ok. I'm pretty sure
openjdk-11 and openjdk-17 are considered LTS by upstream so it would
make sense to keep those specifically.
--
Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: Merging core-updates?, Andreas Enge, 2023/02/13
- Re: Merging core-updates?, Efraim Flashner, 2023/02/13
- Re: Merging core-updates?, Andreas Enge, 2023/02/14
- Re: Merging core-updates?, Andreas Enge, 2023/02/15
- Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?), Andreas Enge, 2023/02/15
- Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?),
Efraim Flashner <=
- Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?), Julien Lepiller, 2023/02/16
- Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?), Andreas Enge, 2023/02/18
- Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?), Andreas Enge, 2023/02/17
- Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?), Andreas Enge, 2023/02/17
- Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?), Andreas Enge, 2023/02/17
- Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?), Kaelyn, 2023/02/17
- Re: Openjdk (was: Merging core-updates?), Andreas Enge, 2023/02/18
Re: Merging core-updates?, Maxime Devos, 2023/02/16
Re: Merging core-updates?, Andreas Enge, 2023/02/16
Ocaml (was: Merging core-updates?), Andreas Enge, 2023/02/18