[Slackbuilds-users] openjdk was: Re: Updates - 20170225.1

[Christoph Willing]

On 26/02/17 09:25, Christoph Willing wrote:
> On 25/02/17 18:12, B Watson wrote:
>> On 2/24/17, Christoph Willing <chris.willing at iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>> Over time, I've had many suggestions and reminders that LibreOffice will
>>> build successfully without the jdk package. I prefer a build with as
>>> full functionality as is made possible upstream, so I prefer that it
>>> remain as a requirement. Java haters are welcome to add --without-java
>>> or --with-java=no to their local versions - which reminds me I could add
>>> a JAVA=no option to the SlackBuild at the next version update.
>>
>> Will it work with openjdk rather than Oracle's jdk?
>>
>> That's probably a question that should be asked about any of the builds
>> mentioned in this thread.
>>
>> If the answer is "it requires a JDK, and will work with either jdk or
>> openjdk", what's the best way to handle that? List jdk in REQUIRES,
>> and say "you can use openjdk instead of jdk" in the README? Or, list
>> neither in REQUIRES, and in the README say "you need one of either jdk
>> or openjdk"?
>>
>> Or, maybe openjdk should be listed in REQUIRES, as it's easier to deal
>> with (doesn't require jumping through hoops to download like jdk does)?
>> In which case the README would say "you can use jdk instead of openjdk"?
> 
> I haven't tried openjdk for a long time - there were often problems
> running it with the java apps I was using at that time and the Oracle
> version always just worked. However that was some time ago and your
> comment about being 'easier to deal with' (in automated build systems,
> at least) is a good point.
> 
> Therefore I tried building openjdk in a fresh 14.2 64bit VM and very
> soon had the following failure:
> 
> compile:
>     [javac] Compiling 2760 source files to
> /tmp/SBo/openjdk/icedtea-build/openjdk.build-boot/jaxws/build/classes
>     [javac] Annotation processing got disabled, since it requires a 1.6
> compliant JVM
>     [javac] java.lang.NullPointerException
>     [javac]    at
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.CompilationUnit.getContents(CompilationUnit.java:77)
>     [javac]    at
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.Main$2.acceptResult(Main.java:2962)
>     [javac]    at
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.Compiler.handleInternalException(Compiler.java:609)
>     [javac]    at
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.Compiler.compile(Compiler.java:527)
>     [javac]    at
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.Main.performCompilation(Main.java:4099)
>     [javac]    at
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.Main.compile(Main.java:1689)
>     [javac]    at
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.Main.main(Main.java:1400)
>     [javac]
> 
> BUILD FAILED
> /tmp/SBo/openjdk/icedtea-build/openjdk-boot/jaxws/build.xml:155: Compile
> failed; see the compiler error output for details.
> 
> Total time: 1 second
> Makefile:150: recipe for target 'all' failed
> 
> 
> 
> This morning I've just started a build in a 32bit VM which is not
> complete yet but seems to be progressing just fine. Is there a known
> problem with openjdk on 64bit? Does anyone recognize the failure above
> and/or know a possible solution?
> 
Well the 32bit version finished building so I was encouraged to try the
64bit build again. This time it has passed the previous point of failure
and seems also to be progressing just fine.

In the meantime, I see that the 32bit build produced
openjdk-7u111b01-i486-1_SBo.txz which seems pretty old. Looking around I
found there was also a SlackBuild for openjdk8 (and even older
openjdk6). Wanting to try the openjdk8, I found it has a requirement for
openjdk (not just apache-ant, as is the case for openjdk & openjdk6). Is
that just a typo (should require apache-ant, not openjdk)?

chris