Re: Mass rebuild for f33-java11 side tag completed

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


>> Any update? Any thoughts on when you want to merge the f33-java11 side tag back into rawhide?

> 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: . 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.


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:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:

[Index of Archives]     [Red Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux