Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
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
: Normal normal (vote)
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)
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: ---
nattka: sanity-check+


Attachments

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)
Comment 2 NATTkA bot gentoo-dev 2021-05-04 09:20:21 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 3 NATTkA bot gentoo-dev 2021-05-04 09:24:23 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 4 NATTkA bot gentoo-dev 2021-05-04 09:32:25 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 5 Georgy Yakovlev gentoo-dev 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)
Comment 9 Georgy Yakovlev gentoo-dev 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 gentoo-dev Security 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 gentoo-dev 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 gentoo-dev Security 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 gentoo-dev 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 gentoo-dev Security 2021-05-25 10:34:37 UTC
amd64 done
Comment 19 Sam James archtester gentoo-dev Security 2021-05-25 10:35:03 UTC
Dropping blocker as LO only needed amd64.
Comment 20 Sam James archtester gentoo-dev Security 2021-05-25 11:30:30 UTC
ppc64 done
Comment 21 Sam James archtester gentoo-dev Security 2021-05-25 12:33:42 UTC
arm64 done

all arches done