Re: [gentoo-dev] unmasking java 11 on gentoo (for those that maintain packages where java is involved, either directly or conditionally)
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 09:45 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > > in case the package does not work with java > 1.8 (still, i suggest we > first try to resolve the issue before we use this restriction as it > might cause some issues in the future) > virtual/jdk:1.8 > virtual/jre:1.8 This does not seem to be enforced by java eclasses. Example dev-java/icedtea-web has BDEPEND=virtual/jdk:1.8 but building icedtea-web with openjdk:11 as system default will try to build with java-11 and the build will fail. Jocke
Re: [gentoo-dev] unmasking java 11 on gentoo (for those that maintain packages where java is involved, either directly or conditionally)
Dne 15. 04. 21 v 16:34 Joakim Tjernlund napsal(a): On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 09:45 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: in case the package does not work with java > 1.8 (still, i suggest we first try to resolve the issue before we use this restriction as it might cause some issues in the future) virtual/jdk:1.8 virtual/jre:1.8 This does not seem to be enforced by java eclasses. Example dev-java/icedtea-web has BDEPEND=virtual/jdk:1.8 but building icedtea-web with openjdk:11 as system default will try to build with java-11 and the build will fail. not sure about BDEPEND but it should be enforced for DEPEND and RDEPEND. regular java apps use classes from jre (java runtime engine) and so they must have the dep both in DEPEND and RDEPEND, not BDEPEND. wrt this icedtea-web issue, this should be filed as a bug. thank you for mentioning this. Jocke fordfrog
Re: [gentoo-dev] unmasking java 11 on gentoo (for those that maintain packages where java is involved, either directly or conditionally)
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 17:21 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > Dne 15. 04. 21 v 16:34 Joakim Tjernlund napsal(a): > > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 09:45 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > > > in case the package does not work with java > 1.8 (still, i suggest we > > > first try to resolve the issue before we use this restriction as it > > > might cause some issues in the future) > > > virtual/jdk:1.8 > > > virtual/jre:1.8 > > > > This does not seem to be enforced by java eclasses. Example > > dev-java/icedtea-web has > > BDEPEND=virtual/jdk:1.8 but building icedtea-web with openjdk:11 as system > > default will > > try to build with java-11 and the build will fail. > not sure about BDEPEND but it should be enforced for DEPEND and RDEPEND. > regular java apps use classes from jre (java runtime engine) and so they > must have the dep both in DEPEND and RDEPEND, not BDEPEND. wrt this > icedtea-web issue, this should be filed as a bug. thank you for > mentioning this. Don't think it is so simple, even if I add virtual/jdk:1.8 to DEPEND and changed RDEPEND to virtual/jdk:1.8 it still fails. > > Jocke > > fordfrog > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] unmasking java 11 on gentoo (for those that maintain packages where java is involved, either directly or conditionally)
Dne 15. 04. 21 v 17:56 Joakim Tjernlund napsal(a): On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 17:21 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: Dne 15. 04. 21 v 16:34 Joakim Tjernlund napsal(a): On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 09:45 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: in case the package does not work with java > 1.8 (still, i suggest we first try to resolve the issue before we use this restriction as it might cause some issues in the future) virtual/jdk:1.8 virtual/jre:1.8 This does not seem to be enforced by java eclasses. Example dev-java/icedtea-web has BDEPEND=virtual/jdk:1.8 but building icedtea-web with openjdk:11 as system default will try to build with java-11 and the build will fail. not sure about BDEPEND but it should be enforced for DEPEND and RDEPEND. regular java apps use classes from jre (java runtime engine) and so they must have the dep both in DEPEND and RDEPEND, not BDEPEND. wrt this icedtea-web issue, this should be filed as a bug. thank you for mentioning this. Don't think it is so simple, even if I add virtual/jdk:1.8 to DEPEND and changed RDEPEND to virtual/jdk:1.8 it still fails. yes, looking at that icedtea-web ebuild, it inherits none of java eclasses so it can't behave as a package that inherits a java eclass. gyakovlev would definitely know better. generally, this thread is meant for packages that inherit one of java eclasses, and even that is oversimplified. Jocke fordfrog
Re: [gentoo-dev] unmasking java 11 on gentoo (for those that maintain packages where java is involved, either directly or conditionally)
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 18:28 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > Dne 15. 04. 21 v 17:56 Joakim Tjernlund napsal(a): > > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 17:21 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > > > Dne 15. 04. 21 v 16:34 Joakim Tjernlund napsal(a): > > > > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 09:45 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > > > > > in case the package does not work with java > 1.8 (still, i suggest we > > > > > first try to resolve the issue before we use this restriction as it > > > > > might cause some issues in the future) > > > > > virtual/jdk:1.8 > > > > > virtual/jre:1.8 > > > > This does not seem to be enforced by java eclasses. Example > > > > dev-java/icedtea-web has > > > > BDEPEND=virtual/jdk:1.8 but building icedtea-web with openjdk:11 as > > > > system default will > > > > try to build with java-11 and the build will fail. > > > not sure about BDEPEND but it should be enforced for DEPEND and RDEPEND. > > > regular java apps use classes from jre (java runtime engine) and so they > > > must have the dep both in DEPEND and RDEPEND, not BDEPEND. wrt this > > > icedtea-web issue, this should be filed as a bug. thank you for > > > mentioning this. > > Don't think it is so simple, even if I add virtual/jdk:1.8 to DEPEND and > > changed > > RDEPEND to virtual/jdk:1.8 it still fails. > yes, looking at that icedtea-web ebuild, it inherits none of java > eclasses so it can't behave as a package that inherits a java eclass. > gyakovlev would definitely know better. generally, this thread is meant > for packages that inherit one of java eclasses, and even that is > oversimplified. > > > Yes, I found the error in dev-java/icedtea-web. Q: Should one use JDK_HOME or JAVA_HOME in ebuilds? However, BDEPEND vs DEPEND is still outstanding. I don't think it is wrong to use BDEPEND here? Also, RDEPEND does not seem to matter, only BDEPEND
Re: [gentoo-dev] unmasking java 11 on gentoo (for those that maintain packages where java is involved, either directly or conditionally)
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 16:35 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 18:28 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > > Dne 15. 04. 21 v 17:56 Joakim Tjernlund napsal(a): > > > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 17:21 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > > > > Dne 15. 04. 21 v 16:34 Joakim Tjernlund napsal(a): > > > > > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 09:45 +0200, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > > > > > > in case the package does not work with java > 1.8 (still, i suggest > > > > > > we > > > > > > first try to resolve the issue before we use this restriction as it > > > > > > might cause some issues in the future) > > > > > > virtual/jdk:1.8 > > > > > > virtual/jre:1.8 > > > > > This does not seem to be enforced by java eclasses. Example > > > > > dev-java/icedtea-web has > > > > > BDEPEND=virtual/jdk:1.8 but building icedtea-web with openjdk:11 as > > > > > system default will > > > > > try to build with java-11 and the build will fail. > > > > not sure about BDEPEND but it should be enforced for DEPEND and RDEPEND. > > > > regular java apps use classes from jre (java runtime engine) and so they > > > > must have the dep both in DEPEND and RDEPEND, not BDEPEND. wrt this > > > > icedtea-web issue, this should be filed as a bug. thank you for > > > > mentioning this. > > > Don't think it is so simple, even if I add virtual/jdk:1.8 to DEPEND and > > > changed > > > RDEPEND to virtual/jdk:1.8 it still fails. > > yes, looking at that icedtea-web ebuild, it inherits none of java > > eclasses so it can't behave as a package that inherits a java eclass. > > gyakovlev would definitely know better. generally, this thread is meant > > for packages that inherit one of java eclasses, and even that is > > oversimplified. > > > > > > Yes, I found the error in dev-java/icedtea-web. Q: Should one use JDK_HOME or > JAVA_HOME in ebuilds? > However, BDEPEND vs DEPEND is still outstanding. I don't think it is wrong to > use BDEPEND here? > > Also, RDEPEND does not seem to matter, only BDEPEND Filed bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/783027 with a small patch, in case you want to comment.
Re: [gentoo-dev] unmasking java 11 on gentoo (for those that maintain packages where java is involved, either directly or conditionally)
Dne 15. 04. 21 v 18:35 Joakim Tjernlund napsal(a): Yes, I found the error in dev-java/icedtea-web. Q: Should one use JDK_HOME or JAVA_HOME in ebuilds? i guess it doesn't matter (at least for packages that inherit java-utils-2.eclass): https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/blob/master/eclass/java-utils-2.eclass#L2711 However, BDEPEND vs DEPEND is still outstanding. I don't think it is wrong to use BDEPEND here? Also, RDEPEND does not seem to matter, only BDEPEND this thread is about packages inheriting a java eclass, which icedtea-web isn't, so it works in a different way. i never touched that package so cannot give you more details, but you can join us at #gentoo-j...@freenode.net and address gyakovlev there. fordfrog
