>> >> Any update? Any thoughts on when you want to merge the f33-java11 side tag back into rawhide? done >> > > BTW There are some packages, e.g. built by ant with no sauce/target level specified at all, that are > built with Java 11-level bytecode. > > This is bad because if there is a dependent package that requires Java 8 for some reason it won't > work because the bytecode of one your dependencies is too new and cannot be interpreted by Java 8. > In these cases > > I am fixing such occurrences in the ```f33-java11``` build target as I encounter them -- just > something to be aware of in case you see any UnsupportedClassVersionErrors. Mat, I had come to same conclusion, which had lead me into this: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/javapackages-tools/pull-request/3#comment-50266 . Please contriute, or sugest next steps here. I would liek to have it java-packaging gudelines change, and self-contained f33 change, but it may be to late. I see yo already track the Fabio's to-high bytecode issue, but my proposal is to prevent it in future. However, it do not seem to be facing to much sympathies. J. -- Jiri Vanek Senior QE engineer, OpenJDK QE lead, Mgr. Red Hat Czech jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx M: +420775390109 _______________________________________________ java-devel mailing list -- java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to java-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
