Summary: | dev-java/openjdk-11.0.11_p9-r1 and dev-java/openjdk-bin-11.0.11_p9-r1 stabilisation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm> |
Component: | Stabilization | Assignee: | Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | java, sam |
Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | CC-ARCHES, STABLEREQ |
Version: | unspecified | Flags: | nattka:
sanity-check+
|
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
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: | --- |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 788112 |
Description
Andreas Sturmlechner
2021-05-04 09:06:45 UTC
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=
Unable to check for sanity:
> package masked: dev-java/openjfx-11.0.9_p0, by keywords: -x86
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]
All sanity-check issues have been resolved 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. 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. 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(+) 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=
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? 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(+) OK, that makes nattka happy locally. Let's see if it works here. Anyway, aren't we missing arm64+ppc64? (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. 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(-) ok feel free to CC arches once it's needed for LO. should be good to go. (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? 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. 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(-) amd64 done Dropping blocker as LO only needed amd64. ppc64 done arm64 done all arches done |