From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48999) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gD6wH-0000rv-Un for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:58:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gD6wE-0000QE-PF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:58:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51923) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gD6wE-0000Q3-Cy for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:58:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gD6wD-0008MO-Ul for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:58:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#33008] [WIP] openjdk 9 and 10 Resent-Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:18 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_?= =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=B6fling?= Message-ID: <20181018135718.66615cec@alma-ubu> In-Reply-To: <20181010234059.337d3496@lepiller.eu> References: <20181010234059.337d3496@lepiller.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/lrxt9WkOJ41VeTXyGmj8O4E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Julien Lepiller Cc: 33008@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/lrxt9WkOJ41VeTXyGmj8O4E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 23:40:59 +0200 Julien Lepiller wrote: > Hi, here are two patches that add openjdk9 and openjdk10. The patches > must be applied on top of core-updates (or master once core-updates is > merged) because of an issue with gcc on master. I haven't tested them > too much, and they were probably too easy to build, so I wouldn't be > surprised if we found something bad in them. Hi Julien, thanks for caring about JDK! I'm positively surprised that it works without any Icedtea-efford. The package definition doesn't look too complicated and it doesn't take too much time to build. And, no, I haven't found something awfully "bad" in there :-) I could even play with the module system and build my own mini-JRE with only the core modules. I wonder if this new feature of JDK9 would be useful in Guix one day. It builds reproducibly, besides from the docs. Maybe we can fix that with the newest Icedtea patch from Gabor? I haven't yet looked into that patch. Version: (version "9+181") Where does that "+181" come from? When I look here: https://jdk.java.net/archive/ I find 9.0.1 and 9.0.4. But maybe that's the versioning of the precompiled releases? Also, the "+" is not very user-friendly: ./pre-inst-env guix build openjdk@9 guix build: error: openjdk: package not found for version 9 Whereas for icedtea I'm used to say: guix build icedtea@1 When I temporarily change that to "9.181" it works. I think there was some functionality within the "@"-logic that matches versions modulo dots. You get what I mean? Also, as I don't know where the version comes from, I couldn't check weather this one is the latest or not. [] Binaries included? If yes, created a snipped? find . -name "*.rar" -or -name "*.pdf" -or -name "*.bin" -or -name "*.pdf" = -or -name "*.dsy" -or -name "*.jar" -or -name "*.exe"=20 There is one exe, many test jars. Two test bins,=20 and two jars in the main: find hotspot/src/ -name "*.jar" hotspot/src/share/tools/IdealGraphVisualizer/branding/modules/org-netbeans-= core-windows.jar hotspot/src/share/tools/IdealGraphVisualizer/branding/core/core.jar But that looks like being part of some tool anyway. Can you strip some/all away? I haven't investigated further. As we are currently not running any tests, stripping away the test jars should be fine. Is there a reason you removed this phase: (delete 'patch-source-shebangs) Homepage: Use HTTPS Donload-URL: Use HTTPS License: I think you missed the classpath thing, cmp. IcedTea: ;; IcedTea is released under the GPL2 + Classpath exception, which is the=20 ;; same license as both GNU Classpath and OpenJDK. When I check with licencechecker there are some files under BSD-3: nashorn/samples/* jdk/make/netbeans/* jdk/src/demo/* test/fmw/gest/include/gtest/internal/* though I'm not sure if they are relevant, as they all are in "test" or "make" or "demo". Bj=C3=B6rn --Sig_/lrxt9WkOJ41VeTXyGmj8O4E Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlvIdR4ACgkQvyhstlk+X/1IeACePV8aFk32fm/JS8foh+d7ViSW OTgAn0VXFi354p9zzAJMMOLa3tfxFtpr =D1dU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/lrxt9WkOJ41VeTXyGmj8O4E--