788118 – dev-java/openjdk-11.0.11_p9-r1 and dev-java/openjdk-bin-11.0.11_p9-r1 stabilisation

Bug 788118 - dev-java/openjdk-11.0.11_p9-r1 and dev-java/openjdk-bin-11.0.11_p9-r1 stabilisation

Summary: dev-java/openjdk-11.0.11_p9-r1 and dev-java/openjdk-bin-11.0.11_p9-r1 stabili...

Status:	RESOLVED FIXED

Alias:	None

Product:	Gentoo Linux
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	Stabilization (show other bugs)
Hardware:	All Linux

Importance:	Normal normal
Assignee:	Georgy Yakovlev

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:	CC-ARCHES, STABLEREQ

Depends on:
Blocks:	788112
	Show dependency tree

Reported:	2021-05-04 09:06 UTC by Andreas Sturmlechner
Modified:	2021-05-25 12:34 UTC (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:	dev-java/openjdk-11.0.11_p9-r1 amd64 arm64 ppc64 dev-java/openjdk-bin-11.0.11_p9-r1 amd64 arm64 ppc64
Runtime testing required:	---

Flags:	nattka: sanity-check+

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev

2021-05-04 09:06:45 UTC

This is independent of a future virtual/jdk:11 stabilisation.

Comment 1 NATTkA bot gentoo-dev

2021-05-04 09:08:23 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)

Sanity check failed:

> dev-java/openjdk-11.0.11_p9-r1
>   depend amd64 dev profile default/linux/amd64/17.0/x32 (3 total)
>     dev-java/openjfx:11=
>   depend amd64 stable profile default/linux/amd64/17.1 (19 total)
>     dev-java/openjfx:11=

Comment 2 NATTkA bot gentoo-dev

2021-05-04 09:20:21 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)

Unable to check for sanity:

> package masked: dev-java/openjfx-11.0.9_p0, by keywords: -x86

Comment 3 NATTkA bot gentoo-dev

2021-05-04 09:24:23 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)

Sanity check failed:

> dev-java/openjfx-11.0.9_p0
>   depend amd64 dev profile default/linux/amd64/17.0/x32 (3 total)
>     dev-java/swt:4.10[cairo,opengl]
>   depend amd64 stable profile default/linux/amd64/17.1 (19 total)
>     dev-java/swt:4.10[cairo,opengl]
>   rdepend amd64 dev profile default/linux/amd64/17.0/x32 (3 total)
>     dev-java/swt:4.10[cairo,opengl]
>   rdepend amd64 stable profile default/linux/amd64/17.1 (19 total)
>     dev-java/swt:4.10[cairo,opengl]

Comment 4 NATTkA bot gentoo-dev

2021-05-04 09:32:25 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)

All sanity-check issues have been resolved

Comment 5 Georgy Yakovlev archtester

2021-05-04 11:44:01 UTC

I guess it will not hurt, as long as gentoo-vm flag is masked and virtual:11 is not stable but will also need to stable-mask some useflags.

Is it needed for openoffice? does it use javafx/openjfx? it's the package I'd rather not stable unless absolutely required.

Comment 6 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev

2021-05-04 13:11:18 UTC

openoffice is dead :p

app-office/libreoffice needs one-of ( openjdk:11 openjdk-bin:11 ) and does not care about the rest, so stable-masking some use flags would be fine.

Comment 7 Larry the Git Cow gentoo-dev

2021-05-04 17:50:07 UTC

The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=e6af37f607bb3be770107523eeb2eb847fcd0145

commit e6af37f607bb3be770107523eeb2eb847fcd0145
Author:     Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@gentoo.org>
AuthorDate: 2021-05-04 17:48:47 +0000
Commit:     Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@gentoo.org>
CommitDate: 2021-05-04 17:49:37 +0000

    profiles/base/package.use.stable.mask: mask openjdk:11[javafx]
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/788118
    Signed-off-by: Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@gentoo.org>

 profiles/base/package.use.stable.mask | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comment 8 NATTkA bot gentoo-dev

2021-05-04 17:52:30 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)

Sanity check failed:

> dev-java/openjdk-11.0.11_p9-r1
>   depend amd64 dev profile default/linux/amd64/17.0/x32 (1 total)
>     dev-java/openjfx:11=
>   depend amd64 stable profile default/linux/amd64/17.1 (15 total)
>     dev-java/openjfx:11=

Comment 9 Georgy Yakovlev archtester

2021-05-04 17:56:55 UTC

I don't remember what's the unmask order.

I already unmask javafx flag via arch-specific package.use.mask
could this unmask be taking priority over stable.use.mask?

Comment 10 Larry the Git Cow gentoo-dev

2021-05-04 23:12:00 UTC

The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=955be319d3421f4ac334d0688d86f51977559a6e

commit 955be319d3421f4ac334d0688d86f51977559a6e
Author:     Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
AuthorDate: 2021-05-04 23:10:53 +0000
Commit:     Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
CommitDate: 2021-05-04 23:11:46 +0000

    profiles/arch/amd64: mask openjfx for stable again
    
    Copy the base stable mask to satisfy pkgcheck for now,
    although it seems redundant...
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/788118
    Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>

 profiles/arch/amd64/package.use.stable.mask | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

Comment 11 Sam James archtester

2021-05-04 23:13:03 UTC

OK, that makes nattka happy locally. Let's see if it works here.

Anyway, aren't we missing arm64+ppc64?

Comment 12 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev

2021-05-05 17:30:17 UTC

(In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> Anyway, aren't we missing arm64+ppc64?
For LibreOffice, only amd64 requires stabilisation. There is no ~x86 keyword für openjdk{,-bin}:11 anyway so LibreOffice is going to be crippled on that arch.

Comment 13 Larry the Git Cow gentoo-dev

2021-05-07 12:34:45 UTC

The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=859c23897a8fb8f1019ccc46c41dc8d0e37a441d

commit 859c23897a8fb8f1019ccc46c41dc8d0e37a441d
Author:     Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@gentoo.org>
AuthorDate: 2021-05-07 12:09:55 +0000
Commit:     Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@gentoo.org>
CommitDate: 2021-05-07 12:33:35 +0000

    profiles/arch/*: re-structure openjdk[javafx] masks
    
    to use profile inheritance properly
    
    mask in arch/base
    unmask on working arches
    stable.mask on working arches
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/788118
    Signed-off-by: Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@gentoo.org>

 profiles/arch/amd64/package.use.mask                     | 1 +
 profiles/arch/amd64/package.use.stable.mask              | 2 +-
 profiles/arch/arm64/package.use.mask                     | 4 ----
 profiles/arch/base/package.use.mask                      | 3 ++-
 profiles/arch/powerpc/package.use.mask                   | 4 ----
 profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.use.mask        | 1 +
 profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.use.stable.mask | 6 ++++++
 profiles/arch/x86/package.use.mask                       | 4 ----
 profiles/base/package.use.stable.mask                    | 6 ------
 9 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

Comment 14 Georgy Yakovlev archtester

2021-05-07 12:47:50 UTC

ok feel free to CC arches once it's needed for LO. should be good to go.

Comment 15 Sam James archtester

2021-05-16 16:11:49 UTC

(In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #12)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> > Anyway, aren't we missing arm64+ppc64?
> For LibreOffice, only amd64 requires stabilisation. There is no ~x86 keyword
> für openjdk{,-bin}:11 anyway so LibreOffice is going to be crippled on that
> arch.

Sure, but we’re going to need it anyway, and it means we don’t have to open a new bug to do it. (I get the point because it’s a new slot, but eventually we’re going to be using it, so let’s do all?)

Are we proceeding with this yet or waiting?

Comment 16 Georgy Yakovlev archtester

2021-05-16 16:51:31 UTC

it's ok to proceed from my POV, don't see problems (at least yet) to stabilize it on all platforms where it's keyworded, sans arm.

so I'm ok with adding ppc64 and arm64 here. ppc64 will be little-endian only though, as we have no big-endian -bin hence no bootstrap for non-bin.
it technically should be masked on big-endian arm64 as well, but idk how alive this profile is.

we can even add s390x there if there's need for that, it can be bootstrapped on that platform.

Comment 17 Larry the Git Cow gentoo-dev

2021-05-16 17:12:46 UTC

The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=fe85de82ad1b82639d800bce1920610a5d8bc68f

commit fe85de82ad1b82639d800bce1920610a5d8bc68f
Author:     Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@gentoo.org>
AuthorDate: 2021-05-16 17:03:49 +0000
Commit:     Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@gentoo.org>
CommitDate: 2021-05-16 17:12:28 +0000

    profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le: fix openjfx mask
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/788118
    Signed-off-by: Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@gentoo.org>

 profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.use.stable.mask | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comment 18 Sam James archtester

2021-05-25 10:34:37 UTC

amd64 done

Comment 19 Sam James archtester

2021-05-25 10:35:03 UTC

Dropping blocker as LO only needed amd64.

Comment 20 Sam James archtester

2021-05-25 11:30:30 UTC

ppc64 done

Comment 21 Sam James archtester

2021-05-25 12:33:42 UTC

arm64 done

all arches done