Hi tony, Am 17.07.2018 um 07:00 schrieb tony mancill: [...] > > Hi Markus, > > Fair enough. I can see the value in providing javadoc (or at least a > way to build the javadoc) for older versions of libraries. > > I think Martin Quinson's suggestion of "shim" jquery package has some > merit. It means that we would have to touch every -java-doc package - > 475 of them, by my current count - but I'm not sure that can be avoided > unless we take the path of patching openjdk-11 to use the Debian system > library.
I believe that every solution that involves patching all of our javadoc packages is not a good one. :) Of course Martin can depend on Debian's system jquery and use dh_link to replace the embedded copy with the one installed on the system but I'm far too lazy too consider this a worthwhile task for myself. It's not efficient, so to speak ;) I'm in favor of tackling the issue at the root, openjdk-11. I will take a closer look at DebConf18 and prepare a patch and resubmit my bug report. Everything else is up to doko. > And finally, although I'm still biased towards working on better runtime > support (to wit, libjide-oss-java is currently FTBFS, so the lintian > jquery warning seems less important than that), I don't think we should > ignore the problem and don't want anyone to feel unnecessarily "meh" > about it either... :) > > Other ideas? I agree there are a lot more interesting problems to work on but it's far easier to solve than many of the other ones. As for libjide-oss-java: I have reported the FTBFS months ago but it doesn't look like that we will see a real solution soon. They depend on functionality which was simply removed with OpenJDK 10. Fortunately only some windows-specific classes are affected, so I could ultimately patch them out and work around it. However we should strongly consider to ship OpenJDK 8 with Buster. Then I could just build-depend on it and be done for now and maybe in two years time there is a better solution. Actually I don't see a reason why we couldn't do it, provided we mark OpenJDK 8 EOL security-wise and just use it for building/developing packages. The most important problem is JavaFX at the moment because without that libjide-oss-java is just another library. The reason why it was packaged is mediathekview but without JavaFX is won't be part of Buster anyway (and PDFsam, and Netbeans, and...) Cheers, Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
