This bug will be used as Java7 stabilization bug when it's time. Pre-opening to add blockers to it.
*** Bug 498458 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please add bug 491066 as blocked by this bug.
Any news on this bug? Oracle-jdk-bin is stable (bug 473980 and 435644), also java-config-2.2.0 is stable on amd64 and x86 (500398). So could we stabilize jdk-1.7.0 as well?
(In reply to Jens-Uwe Peter from comment #3) > Any news on this bug? Oracle-jdk-bin is stable (bug 473980 and 435644), also > java-config-2.2.0 is stable on amd64 and x86 (500398). So could we stabilize > jdk-1.7.0 as well? This might need stabilization of icedtea too; looking at that, there are some bugs filed against that so I'm not quite sure if that is ready for stabilization.
(In reply to Tom Wijsman (TomWij) from comment #4) > (In reply to Jens-Uwe Peter from comment #3) > > Any news on this bug? Oracle-jdk-bin is stable (bug 473980 and 435644), also > > java-config-2.2.0 is stable on amd64 and x86 (500398). So could we stabilize > > jdk-1.7.0 as well? > > This might need stabilization of icedtea too; looking at that, there are > some bugs filed against that so I'm not quite sure if that is ready for > stabilization. Would be nice if java team could review that icedtea-bin-7.x bugs to verify if they really should block this :/
What packages would include this stabilization apart of icedtea-bin and oracle java providers?
(In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #6) > What packages would include this stabilization apart of icedtea-bin and > oracle java providers? Bug 506674 and 506678 are about oracle-jdk-bin:1.8 whereas this bug is about Java7 stabilization, so both should be independend.
removing bugs related to jdk8 and unrelated to jdk7
As dev-java/jdk is slotted, why should this bug depend on Bug 483018? Bug 483018 could still be solved after 1.7 stabilization.
(In reply to charles17 from comment #9) > As dev-java/jdk is slotted, why should this bug depend on Bug 483018? > Bug 483018 could still be solved after 1.7 stabilization. You're right. In fact, it's blocked by this bug because we can't remove Java 6 until 7 is available to stable users.
There are no blockers left. Will you close this bug and proceed with stabilizing 538800?
@James... is there any more pending that is blocking the jdk7 stabilization? (Well, it seems oracle's impl was stabilized already and then is mostly affecting users of icedtea :/) Thanks
I'm not sure how far we have to go to close this off. Oracle's JDK and JRE are stable for some arches but not arm, for example, and there are no stable alternatives. Oracle's cannot be marked stable for arm because they only release for that platform once in a while and the latest version usually has security vulnerabilities. I intend to push arm onto icedtea. As you mentioned, icedtea hasn't been marked stable at all. Maybe that doesn't matter? I feel this stabilisation effort is a bit backwards. I'll be honest in saying that I don't particularly care for stable so I only stabilise where needed to clear out ancient versions and avoid breaking the tree. If the arch teams really want this stuff stabilised then they should be chasing us, not the other way round.
Bug #538800 has just been closed so I guess I can close this now. arm was never stable for 1.6 either so that's not such a big issue. ppc and ppc64 were stable but we currently have no 1.7 VMs keyworded for those at all. That issue is being discussed elsewhere.
Well, having dev-java/icedtea-bin-7.2.5.3 stabilized would be really nice as it would provide jdk7 for stable people that are running it instead of oracle to bypass the fetch restriction due to licensing issues :/
Hi Pacho. Your remark is a valid one. Please file a stabilisation request and we'll take care of the rest. Thank you.
(In reply to Patrice Clement from comment #16) > Hi Pacho. Your remark is a valid one. Please file a stabilisation request > and we'll take care of the rest. Thank you. Just done, thanks -> bug 546902 :)
