IcedTea 1 / OpenJDK 6 discontinued

IcedTea 1 / OpenJDK 6 discontinued

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 874 bytes --]

Time marches on and IcedTea 1, which provides OpenJDK 6, is approaching
the end of its life:

http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2017/01/11/discontinuation-of-support-for-icedtea-1-x/

There will be one more release in the series, 1.14.0.

Thankfully, we have zero packages that depend on it, except for
icedtea-7, which inherits from it.

What does everyone think we should do? I see 4 options:

1) Distributions like ours will have to support it ourselves. That means
fixing bugs, including security issues. This would probably be a
cross-distro effort.

2) We will continue to package it, but not try to support it. The
package will be stuck in time, and we should mark it as deprecated
somehow, at least with a comment in the package description.

3) We Will remove the package and adjust our icedtea-7 package to no
longer inherit from icedtea-6.

4) Something else...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: IcedTea 1 / OpenJDK 6 discontinued

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1135 bytes --]

Hi Leo,

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

> Time marches on and IcedTea 1, which provides OpenJDK 6, is approaching
> the end of its life:
>
> http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2017/01/11/discontinuation-of-support-for-icedtea-1-x/
>
> There will be one more release in the series, 1.14.0.
>
> Thankfully, we have zero packages that depend on it, except for
> icedtea-7, which inherits from it.

Thanks for the heads-up.

> What does everyone think we should do? I see 4 options:
>
> 1) Distributions like ours will have to support it ourselves. That means
> fixing bugs, including security issues. This would probably be a
> cross-distro effort.
>
> 2) We will continue to package it, but not try to support it. The
> package will be stuck in time, and we should mark it as deprecated
> somehow, at least with a comment in the package description.
>
> 3) We Will remove the package and adjust our icedtea-7 package to no
> longer inherit from icedtea-6.
>
> 4) Something else...

5) 2+3: Carry icedtea@6 until we have a reason to remove it (e.g.
security problems), but make sure it can go on short notice (no
inheritance).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: IcedTea 1 / OpenJDK 6 discontinued

[Kei Kebreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1336 bytes --]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:

> Hi Leo,
>
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>
>> Time marches on and IcedTea 1, which provides OpenJDK 6, is approaching
>> the end of its life:
>>
>> http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2017/01/11/discontinuation-of-support-for-icedtea-1-x/
>>
>> There will be one more release in the series, 1.14.0.
>>
>> Thankfully, we have zero packages that depend on it, except for
>> icedtea-7, which inherits from it.
>
> Thanks for the heads-up.
>
>> What does everyone think we should do? I see 4 options:
>>
>> 1) Distributions like ours will have to support it ourselves. That means
>> fixing bugs, including security issues. This would probably be a
>> cross-distro effort.
>>
>> 2) We will continue to package it, but not try to support it. The
>> package will be stuck in time, and we should mark it as deprecated
>> somehow, at least with a comment in the package description.
>>
>> 3) We Will remove the package and adjust our icedtea-7 package to no
>> longer inherit from icedtea-6.
>>
>> 4) Something else...
>
> 5) 2+3: Carry icedtea@6 until we have a reason to remove it (e.g.
> security problems), but make sure it can go on short notice (no
> inheritance).

I agree with Marius's option 5. I don't see an immediate reason to
remove it, and we can build icedtea-7 using gcj.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: IcedTea 1 / OpenJDK 6 discontinued

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 394 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:07:28PM -0500, Kei Kebreau wrote:
> I agree with Marius's option 5. I don't see an immediate reason to
> remove it, and we can build icedtea-7 using gcj.

I actually hadn't noticed that icedtea-7 builds with icedtea-6. I
thought it simply inherited from the package definition. I don't think
we should remove it in that case. And GCJ has been removed from GCC
AFAIK.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: IcedTea 1 / OpenJDK 6 discontinued

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:07:28PM -0500, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>> I agree with Marius's option 5. I don't see an immediate reason to
>> remove it, and we can build icedtea-7 using gcj.
>
> I actually hadn't noticed that icedtea-7 builds with icedtea-6. I
> thought it simply inherited from the package definition.

It does not.  Icedtea-7 builds with GCJ.

I see no problems with removing “icedtea-6” (after removing the
inheritance issues).  I would not like to wait for security advisories
to be published, because security vulnerabilities in Java are really
just a matter of time.  They may not even be reported in time because
hardly anyone uses that version any more.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net