Re: No default OpenJDK version?

[Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>]

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