I feel this is no longer relevant, as the target version is deprecated. Will close and reopen for relevant OpenJDK versions when time permits.

Thanks a lot for the reviews!

• java/openjdk*: expiration date + portrevision

@bofh Thanks! That's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for.

In D53975#1235259, @fuz wrote:

Patch looks fine. Approved for commit once you feel like you have tested it sufficiently.

In D53975#1234044, @fuz wrote:

In D53975#1233980, @haraldei wrote:

In D53975#1233152, @fuz wrote:

For testing, the gold standard is to build the port and execute the test suite on as many platforms we support as possible, on all currently supported OS versions (that is, 13.5, 14.3, and 15.0).

Do I have access to, and can I use the ref*-machines for that?

As far as I know, there are no resources for that.

For posterity, the current test results for AMD64:

In D53975#1233152, @fuz wrote:

For testing, the gold standard is to build the port and execute the test suite on as many platforms we support as possible, on all currently supported OS versions (that is, 13.5, 14.3, and 15.0).

I don't really have a strong opinion on this change, but if it fixes the issue for now, I'm good with it. Technically I don't think the bootstrap JDK needs X11 to build the target JDK, but since they packaged the full JDK including libawt_xawt.so at the time it is now flagged with the new change to pkg.

I've been thinking a bit more about this, and wrote up some of my thoughts here: https://kodeknekkeriet.net/en/blog/introducing-flavors-in-openjdk-freebsd/

Thanks for the reviews and help!

Rebased to main and:

@fuz There's really no problem with installing all flavors at the same time, except for bloat of course. It was @jrm who wanted me to look into the CONFLICTS_INSTALL stuff. For now I think I'll just revert that, and look back into it if needed later.

The commit message was not included, so here's a description instead:

• java/openjdk25: Fix more review comments
• java/openjdk25: Fix lib dependencies and flavor matchers
• java/openjdk25: Add CONFLIGS_INSTALL

In D53807#1229879, @fernape wrote:

In D53807#1229368, @haraldei wrote:

Not sure if it belongs in the java category, though... Perhaps security instead?

Yeah, you're right. Dropping java as category.

Not sure if it belongs in the java category, though... Perhaps security instead?

In D53782#1228128, @lwhsu wrote:

And in ports we probably cannot only checks for ${JAVA_HOME}/bin/java and think it's the full version, need to check for something only available in full version but not in headless version.

This is a good point!

Think I fixed all issues now.

• java/openjdk25: Fix minor typo causing wrong pkg name

• java/openjdk25: Fix review comments

In D53707#1226353, @fuz wrote:

Looks reasonable. I trust you to have tested this change well.

In D53450#1222561, @fuz wrote:

Looks good to me. Please proceed with a commit.

The reason I was able to run tuxguitar (a gui app) under the -headless variant was that it bundles swt.jar which dynamically loads gtk. The -headless variant only affects awt based apps.

• java/openjdk25: Update with comments for review

Obsoleted by https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=1019f032bb79414f19b7f7c120905782ed2392db

I discovered during testing that it seems the headless build happyly also runs gui programs. That's not as intended, so I'll have to explore that before pushing this in any case.

In D53450#1221235, @jrm wrote:

If you really wanted to try to make portlint happy, you could replace the .if ${FLAVORS:U} instances with flavor helpers (e.g., jre_USES=...), but that seems like busy work for little benefit.

Hopefully the commit message is better now. Used the template so field should be in order and values align, though it's not visible in the differential summary.

java/openjdk25: New port

java/openjdk25: New port

Thanks a lot for the review, I'll squash and update the summary/commit message once the diff is accepted.

• java/openjdk25: feedback from bofh and fuz

• java/openjdk25: Drop PORTREVISION

• Add openjdk25 to bsd.default-versions.mk

In D53326#1217838, @jrm wrote:

The build is failing because configure is unhappy with the bootstrap version.

• java/openjdk25: Fix bootstrap jdk dependency

• java/Makefile: Fix indentation

In D53326#1217823, @jrm wrote:

We need an entry in java/Makefile.

• Add openjdk 25 to available ports

In D53320#1217787, @emaste wrote:

14.2 not 14.3

@jrm Thanks, I'll revisit this.

Should probably also mention in the commit message that this changes from the battleblow repo to the freebsd hosted repo.

In D51873#1185810, @des wrote:

In D51873#1185795, @haraldei_anduin.net wrote:

I don't really have an opinion, but it's interesting wrt https://reviews.freebsd.org/D50349.

Sorry, I don't see the relevance

I don't really have an opinion, but it's interesting wrt https://reviews.freebsd.org/D50349.

@glewis Thanks for the feedback. Fixed the issues you pointed out. Seems make makesum was a bit too eager :)

• java/openjdk11: Drop PORTREVISION from makefile
• java/openjdk11: Restore cups in distinfo

In D50349#1149434, @lwhsu wrote:

Yeah, it's superfluous to install multiple JDKs unless you really need to use multiple versions, and the bootstrap- one isn't supposed to be used in other place so it's better not to leave on the system. (OTOH, it's only BUILD_DEPENDS so it won't be the case when installing via pkg)

• java/openjdk24: Update distfiles location

In D50349#1149135, @bofh wrote:

I do not see any pkg-descr file. Please add one.

• java/openjdk24: Remove unused var from Makefile

In D50349#1149046, @lwhsu wrote:

I feel that we could follow other java/bootstrap-openjdk* route, that seems more clear and cleaner (IMHO). We don't have newer bootstrap-openjdk than version 17 and maybe it's time for adding a bootstrap-openjdk23?

• java/openjdk24: Don't extract bootjdk twice

In D50349#1148782, @jrm wrote:

I requested an openjdk account on freefall to host the distfiles. Adding PowerPC here to see if they are willing to help.

Note, I do not have a OpenJDK23 bootstrap jdk for PPC64 yet, and will need help to get that built.

In D49996#1140454, @jrm wrote:

Poudriere builds look good. Harald, please let me know if you're satisfied with all your run-time tests, and I'll commit.

• java/openjdk24: Don't bump portrevision

Builds and installs fine on AMD64 and Aarch64. Waiting for feedback on PPC.

• java/openjdk24: Remove os_bsd_ppc patch

Update pkg-descr to align with previous openjdk ports.

I'm good with the commit message, but let me fix the pkg-descr first :)

In D49354#1128642, @jrm wrote:

Some lower-priority points:

• We've discussed stripping vs. not stripping before, but for reference, the policy is to strip binaries and shared libraries. In this case, stripping reduces the size by about 6.5 MB.

• Changed source repo to freebsd/openjdk.
• Changed release tag to jdk-24-ga-freebsd-1
• Removed i386 as target arch, and added comment.
• Removed broken build lines for i386.
• Fixed build for aarch64 by removing JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS env var and enabling compressed class pointers.

In D49354#1125564, @emaste wrote:

Is there a reason not to apply (some of) the patches in the repo directly?

This port is based on my own clone of the openjdk/jdk repo, as there's no bsd openjdk branch or repo from battleblow yet. I'm hoping we can move to battleblow before release.

Anything missing for this to be merged?

Bump PORTREVISION

In D48806#1113263, @jrm wrote:

Sounds good. You also need to bump PORTREVSION.

In D48806#1113261, @jrm wrote:

Should the patch be removed from other JDK ports as well?