Hi tony, On 2022-08-16 07:48, tony mancill wrote: > The reason you don't see the FTBFS is because the default-jdk in sid > (source package is java-common [1]) still depends on openjdk-11. The > version in experimental [2] will pull in openjdk-17.
Right, I tested on experimental and can now confirm that jamm indeed FTBFS. [snip] > For what it's worth, I took a look at the upstream repo and the failing > tests. One of them can be resolved by changing the maven-compiler-plugin > source and target from 1.6 to 11. I tried the suggestion in [3] of > adding --add-opens, but it doesn't resolve the (2) remaining test failures. > > As best as I can tell, the issue with the tests should be addressed > upstream. (It would also be nice to get a tag into the repo for 0.4.0, > although that is going to require some tweaking before it will build on > Java 17 too. There is an open issue for the lack of recent tags too > [4].) Thanks for giving this a look. I agree it is mostly up to upstream to fix this. > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/java-common > [2] > https://tracker.debian.org/news/1227476/accepted-java-common-072exp2-source-into-experimental/ > [3] https://github.com/jbellis/jamm/issues/48 > [4] https://github.com/jbellis/jamm/issues/43 Best wishes, Andrius
