[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No default OpenJDK version?
From: |
Vagrant Cascadian |
Subject: |
Re: No default OpenJDK version? |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:50:54 -0700 |
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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature