No default OpenJDK version?

No default OpenJDK version?

[Vagrant Cascadian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2551 bytes --]

When recently taking a look at diffoscope, I was reminded that there is
effectively no default openjdk version, you have to pick a specific
version for each package definition...

At some time in diffoscope's history, that was openjdk@12.

But there are quite a few versions to choose from:

  guix package -A openjdk | sort -V
  openjdk 9.181           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:869:2
  openjdk 10.46           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1140:2
  openjdk 11.0.22         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1218:2
  openjdk 12.33           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1536:2
  openjdk 13.0.14         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1576:2
  openjdk 14.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1583:2
  openjdk 15.0.10         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1598:2
  openjdk 16.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1617:2
  openjdk 17.0.10         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1625:2
  openjdk 18.0.2.1        out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1642:2
  openjdk 19.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1646:2
  openjdk 20.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1663:2
  openjdk 21.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1667:2

Some packages may only work with a specific era of openjdk, but I
suspect many of the packages in guix just picked whatever version
happened to be present when it was added to guix.

Which makes it hard to know when to update the openjdk dependency...

In the diffoscope case, it seems to have work fine with openjdk@21, with
the only result being that some openjdk-version-specific tests pass and
some are skipped as a one-for-one trade compared to the old openjdk@12.

Alternately, I would be tempted to switch to openjdk@17, which is the
current default in Debian, so has a little more testing behind it...

Though there is a bit of a perverse incentive to stick with the oldest
version that still works, due to openjdk having a very long bootstrap
chain of itself...

And then the question gets to be of diffoscope's dependencies, what
versions of openjdk do they pull in (notably enjarify, which uses
openjdk@12, although that also seems to work ok with openjdk@21)?


Would it make sense to have an openjdk "default" version, so packages
could instead depend on that, and only need to specify a version if
needed for some particular reason? Or is compatibility across openjdk
versions troublesome enough that it really always needs to be handled on
a case-by-case basis?


live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: No default OpenJDK version?

[Julien Lepiller]

Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk…

Le 16 avril 2024 22:25:33 GMT+02:00, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> a écrit :
>When recently taking a look at diffoscope, I was reminded that there is
>effectively no default openjdk version, you have to pick a specific
>version for each package definition...
>
>At some time in diffoscope's history, that was openjdk@12.
>
>But there are quite a few versions to choose from:
>
>  guix package -A openjdk | sort -V
>  openjdk 9.181           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:869:2
>  openjdk 10.46           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1140:2
>  openjdk 11.0.22         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1218:2
>  openjdk 12.33           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1536:2
>  openjdk 13.0.14         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1576:2
>  openjdk 14.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1583:2
>  openjdk 15.0.10         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1598:2
>  openjdk 16.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1617:2
>  openjdk 17.0.10         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1625:2
>  openjdk 18.0.2.1        out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1642:2
>  openjdk 19.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1646:2
>  openjdk 20.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1663:2
>  openjdk 21.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1667:2
>
>Some packages may only work with a specific era of openjdk, but I
>suspect many of the packages in guix just picked whatever version
>happened to be present when it was added to guix.
>
>Which makes it hard to know when to update the openjdk dependency...
>
>In the diffoscope case, it seems to have work fine with openjdk@21, with
>the only result being that some openjdk-version-specific tests pass and
>some are skipped as a one-for-one trade compared to the old openjdk@12.
>
>Alternately, I would be tempted to switch to openjdk@17, which is the
>current default in Debian, so has a little more testing behind it...
>
>Though there is a bit of a perverse incentive to stick with the oldest
>version that still works, due to openjdk having a very long bootstrap
>chain of itself...
>
>And then the question gets to be of diffoscope's dependencies, what
>versions of openjdk do they pull in (notably enjarify, which uses
>openjdk@12, although that also seems to work ok with openjdk@21)?
>
>
>Would it make sense to have an openjdk "default" version, so packages
>could instead depend on that, and only need to specify a version if
>needed for some particular reason? Or is compatibility across openjdk
>versions troublesome enough that it really always needs to be handled on
>a case-by-case basis?
>
>
>live well,
>  vagrant

Re: No default OpenJDK version?

[Attila Lendvai]

> Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build
> system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still
> have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so
> I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk…


does that prevent the introduction of a newer default JDK and annotating the old java dependency on the (hopefully few) packages that fail to build with a newer default?

-- 
• attila lendvai
• PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
--
“Malthus was right. It's hard to see how the solar system could support much more than 10^28 people or the universe more than 10^50.”
	— John McCarthy (1927–2011), father of Lisp

Re: No default OpenJDK version?

[Vagrant Cascadian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2465 bytes --]

On 2024-04-16, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build
> system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still
> have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so
> I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk…

But for the packages that explicitly need to pull in openjdk:

  git grep 'openjdk[1-9]' | grep -v define-public | grep -v java.scm | nl
     1  gnu/packages/android.scm:    (native-inputs (list openjdk12))
     2  gnu/packages/apl.scm:    (inputs (list bash-minimal openjdk18))
     3  gnu/packages/apl.scm:    (native-inputs (list `(,openjdk18 "jdk") zip))
     4  gnu/packages/axoloti.scm:     `(("openjdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk")
     5  gnu/packages/bioconductor.scm:     (list (list openjdk11 "jdk")
     6  gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm:       #:jdk openjdk11))
     7  gnu/packages/cran.scm:       ("jdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk")
     8  gnu/packages/diffoscope.scm:         (list `(,openjdk12 "jdk")
     9  gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm:       (list emacs-ecukes emacs-espuds emacs-undercover openjdk9))
    10  gnu/packages/geo.scm:           openjdk11))
    11  gnu/packages/geo.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk11
    12  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
    13  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
    14  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
    15  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
    16  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
    17  gnu/packages/gstreamer.scm:       ("openjdk" ,openjdk14)
    18  gnu/packages/gstreamer.scm:       ("openjdk:jdk" ,openjdk14 "jdk")
    19  gnu/packages/java-compression.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
    20  gnu/packages/kodi.scm:           openjdk9                     ;like groovy
    21  gnu/packages/mpi.scm:     `(("jdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk")
    22  gnu/packages/pep.scm:           `(,openjdk9 "jdk") which yml2))


It is not a crazy number of packages, but in cases like diffoscope and
enjarify, which seem fairly compatible with arbitrary versions, it would
be nice to have an unversioned option to specify?

Maybe I confused things by talking about the "default" version, I guess
I was wondering if it would make sense for an "openjdk-latest" or
"openjdk-lts" or whatever color you want, just as long as it does not
require specifying (and more importantly, keeping track of) the version
of openjdk needed.

live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: No default OpenJDK version?

[Julien Lepiller]

Makes sense, we can do that.

Le 16 avril 2024 23:50:54 GMT+02:00, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> a écrit :
>On 2024-04-16, Julien Lepiller wrote:
>> Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build
>> system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still
>> have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so
>> I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk…
>
>But for the packages that explicitly need to pull in openjdk:
>
>  git grep 'openjdk[1-9]' | grep -v define-public | grep -v java.scm | nl
>     1  gnu/packages/android.scm:    (native-inputs (list openjdk12))
>     2  gnu/packages/apl.scm:    (inputs (list bash-minimal openjdk18))
>     3  gnu/packages/apl.scm:    (native-inputs (list `(,openjdk18 "jdk") zip))
>     4  gnu/packages/axoloti.scm:     `(("openjdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk")
>     5  gnu/packages/bioconductor.scm:     (list (list openjdk11 "jdk")
>     6  gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm:       #:jdk openjdk11))
>     7  gnu/packages/cran.scm:       ("jdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk")
>     8  gnu/packages/diffoscope.scm:         (list `(,openjdk12 "jdk")
>     9  gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm:       (list emacs-ecukes emacs-espuds emacs-undercover openjdk9))
>    10  gnu/packages/geo.scm:           openjdk11))
>    11  gnu/packages/geo.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk11
>    12  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
>    13  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
>    14  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
>    15  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
>    16  gnu/packages/groovy.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
>    17  gnu/packages/gstreamer.scm:       ("openjdk" ,openjdk14)
>    18  gnu/packages/gstreamer.scm:       ("openjdk:jdk" ,openjdk14 "jdk")
>    19  gnu/packages/java-compression.scm:       #:jdk ,openjdk9
>    20  gnu/packages/kodi.scm:           openjdk9                     ;like groovy
>    21  gnu/packages/mpi.scm:     `(("jdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk")
>    22  gnu/packages/pep.scm:           `(,openjdk9 "jdk") which yml2))
>
>
>It is not a crazy number of packages, but in cases like diffoscope and
>enjarify, which seem fairly compatible with arbitrary versions, it would
>be nice to have an unversioned option to specify?
>
>Maybe I confused things by talking about the "default" version, I guess
>I was wondering if it would make sense for an "openjdk-latest" or
>"openjdk-lts" or whatever color you want, just as long as it does not
>require specifying (and more importantly, keeping track of) the version
>of openjdk needed.
>
>live well,
>  vagrant

Re: No default OpenJDK version?

[Markku Korkeala]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk…

Hi,

is there effort to update the default jdk at some point? I could help with
it. I'm not familiar with the guix java build systems, but have long
experience as a Java developer. I also maintain few java packages in Fedora
and saw the transition to to jdk11 [1], jdk17 [2] and now to jdk21 [3]. The
pages have documented common issues and workarounds, which might help.

[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11
[2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java17
[3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java21

Best wishes,
Markku

> Le 16 avril 2024 22:25:33 GMT+02:00, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> a écrit :
> >When recently taking a look at diffoscope, I was reminded that there is
> >effectively no default openjdk version, you have to pick a specific
> >version for each package definition...
> >
> >At some time in diffoscope's history, that was openjdk@12.
> >
> >But there are quite a few versions to choose from:
> >
> >  guix package -A openjdk | sort -V
> >  openjdk 9.181           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:869:2
> >  openjdk 10.46           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1140:2
> >  openjdk 11.0.22         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1218:2
> >  openjdk 12.33           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1536:2
> >  openjdk 13.0.14         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1576:2
> >  openjdk 14.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1583:2
> >  openjdk 15.0.10         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1598:2
> >  openjdk 16.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1617:2
> >  openjdk 17.0.10         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1625:2
> >  openjdk 18.0.2.1        out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1642:2
> >  openjdk 19.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1646:2
> >  openjdk 20.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1663:2
> >  openjdk 21.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1667:2
> >
> >Some packages may only work with a specific era of openjdk, but I
> >suspect many of the packages in guix just picked whatever version
> >happened to be present when it was added to guix.
> >
> >Which makes it hard to know when to update the openjdk dependency...
> >
> >In the diffoscope case, it seems to have work fine with openjdk@21, with
> >the only result being that some openjdk-version-specific tests pass and
> >some are skipped as a one-for-one trade compared to the old openjdk@12.
> >
> >Alternately, I would be tempted to switch to openjdk@17, which is the
> >current default in Debian, so has a little more testing behind it...
> >
> >Though there is a bit of a perverse incentive to stick with the oldest
> >version that still works, due to openjdk having a very long bootstrap
> >chain of itself...
> >
> >And then the question gets to be of diffoscope's dependencies, what
> >versions of openjdk do they pull in (notably enjarify, which uses
> >openjdk@12, although that also seems to work ok with openjdk@21)?
> >
> >
> >Would it make sense to have an openjdk "default" version, so packages
> >could instead depend on that, and only need to specify a version if
> >needed for some particular reason? Or is compatibility across openjdk
> >versions troublesome enough that it really always needs to be handled on
> >a case-by-case basis?
> >
> >
> >live well,
> >  vagrant
> 

Re: No default OpenJDK version?

[Julien Lepiller]

I think the first step would be to target openjdk 9, since it already introduces quite a lot of changes compared to java 8. To do it, I would suggest to change the default jdk in the ant-build-system and maven-build-system, and see what is broken, if it can simply be updated without breaking dependents, or if it (and its dependencies) needs to be built with an older jdk.

Some packages are bootstrap packages that are quite old and will never support a newer jdk. For some of them, we can simply specify a source/target level (not sure it's supported by the build-system yet), but I remember trying and a few need java 5, which is no longer a supported level.

I have already added support for java modules in the ant-build-system, and I just pushed a few updates to some packages that could not previously be built with java 9.

Le 20 avril 2024 19:19:37 GMT+02:00, Markku Korkeala <markku.korkeala@iki.fi> a écrit :
>On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
>> Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk…
>
>Hi,
>
>is there effort to update the default jdk at some point? I could help with
>it. I'm not familiar with the guix java build systems, but have long
>experience as a Java developer. I also maintain few java packages in Fedora
>and saw the transition to to jdk11 [1], jdk17 [2] and now to jdk21 [3]. The
>pages have documented common issues and workarounds, which might help.
>
>[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11
>[2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java17
>[3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java21
>
>Best wishes,
>Markku
>
>> Le 16 avril 2024 22:25:33 GMT+02:00, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> a écrit :
>> >When recently taking a look at diffoscope, I was reminded that there is
>> >effectively no default openjdk version, you have to pick a specific
>> >version for each package definition...
>> >
>> >At some time in diffoscope's history, that was openjdk@12.
>> >
>> >But there are quite a few versions to choose from:
>> >
>> >  guix package -A openjdk | sort -V
>> >  openjdk 9.181           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:869:2
>> >  openjdk 10.46           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1140:2
>> >  openjdk 11.0.22         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1218:2
>> >  openjdk 12.33           out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1536:2
>> >  openjdk 13.0.14         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1576:2
>> >  openjdk 14.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1583:2
>> >  openjdk 15.0.10         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1598:2
>> >  openjdk 16.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1617:2
>> >  openjdk 17.0.10         out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1625:2
>> >  openjdk 18.0.2.1        out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1642:2
>> >  openjdk 19.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1646:2
>> >  openjdk 20.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1663:2
>> >  openjdk 21.0.2          out,jdk,doc     gnu/packages/java.scm:1667:2
>> >
>> >Some packages may only work with a specific era of openjdk, but I
>> >suspect many of the packages in guix just picked whatever version
>> >happened to be present when it was added to guix.
>> >
>> >Which makes it hard to know when to update the openjdk dependency...
>> >
>> >In the diffoscope case, it seems to have work fine with openjdk@21, with
>> >the only result being that some openjdk-version-specific tests pass and
>> >some are skipped as a one-for-one trade compared to the old openjdk@12.
>> >
>> >Alternately, I would be tempted to switch to openjdk@17, which is the
>> >current default in Debian, so has a little more testing behind it...
>> >
>> >Though there is a bit of a perverse incentive to stick with the oldest
>> >version that still works, due to openjdk having a very long bootstrap
>> >chain of itself...
>> >
>> >And then the question gets to be of diffoscope's dependencies, what
>> >versions of openjdk do they pull in (notably enjarify, which uses
>> >openjdk@12, although that also seems to work ok with openjdk@21)?
>> >
>> >
>> >Would it make sense to have an openjdk "default" version, so packages
>> >could instead depend on that, and only need to specify a version if
>> >needed for some particular reason? Or is compatibility across openjdk
>> >versions troublesome enough that it really always needs to be handled on
>> >a case-by-case basis?
>> >
>> >
>> >live well,
>> >  vagrant
>> 

Re: No default OpenJDK version?

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi,

Markku Korkeala <markku.korkeala@iki.fi> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
>> Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build
>> system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still
>> have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so
>> I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk…
>
> Hi,
>
> is there effort to update the default jdk at some point? I could help with
> it. I'm not familiar with the guix java build systems, but have long
> experience as a Java developer. I also maintain few java packages in Fedora
> and saw the transition to to jdk11 [1], jdk17 [2] and now to jdk21 [3]. The
> pages have documented common issues and workarounds, which might help.

I'm not aware of such effort in Guix currently, so feel free to
spearhead it!  It'd be beneficial, although I supposed difficult to
achieve due to bootstrap reasons, perhaps.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim