Thank you for your efforts, at this time we do not think it is possible to properly package Java without a large amount of hacking first (eg. all current PKGBUILDs that were inherited from Arch are "dirty" in the sense that they download various pre-compiled and pre-packaged binaries).
k, I still have some questions tho
Java is being removed from our primary repository for v0.4, but you are welcome to keep your own local copy as a potential community package at a future date.
I get this means the next Hyperbola version that could possibly have java reincluded would be Canis Major with snapshot date not yet given in https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id … n:releases (I guess it's going to be somewhere in 2020 because that's when Milky Way becomes old-stable).
OpenJDK7 shall lose RedHat's support in June 2020, so I guess it's to be excluded. OpenJDK8 is, however, going to be supported until June 2023.
question1: Does this mean OpenJDK8's rebranded version could be included in Canis Major?
OpenJDK8 can be built from openjdk sources as well as from icedtea sources. From https://git.hyperbola.info:50100/packag … a8-openjdk one can conclude, that the latter is preferred. Debian patches, however, are made for openjdk sources and are probably dangerous to apply to icedtea. So...
question2: If answer for question1 is "yes", should icedtea sources without debian patches or openjdk sources with patches be used? It seems that most icedtea changes have already been incorporated in upstream openjdk but I'm still asking just to be sure
The whole rebranding thing came from the issue with 'OpenJDK' trademark. According to https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system … trademarks (referenced from Hyperbola's 'Social Contract') trademarks may or may not make software nonfree.
question3: 'Java' is also a trademark. No, I have not yet found what restrictions Oracle imposes on it's use. Anyways, may it be that not only jdk but the entire language has to be renamed to something else? I don't think so, because there was no problem with GNU developing GCJ. But I'm asking just to be sure!
JDKs can be bootstrapped, but it seems that it requires starting with GCJ to build icedtea6, to build icedtea7, to build icedtea8.
question4: Does it make sense to make this chain of PKGBUILDs, given some of it's members are or may soon become abandonware? Or maybe all the bootstrap chain should be performed inside single PKGBUILD for jdk8?
Object oriented programs are offered as alternatives to correct ones ~ Edsger W. Dijkstra