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?

@jrm Yeah, I was mostly thinking about the quality of production code backtraces :) A full strip will clearly strip more than just debug info. It will probably make a difference for internal errors in the JVM itself, but not much for code running _on_ the JVM.

@michaelo I don't see any significant change between the output from jstack regardless of the target process running from stripped or non-stripped binaries: https://gist.github.com/snake66/319cdc0772902037610da906c0863d47

In D48223#1105117, @michaelo wrote:

In D48223#1105116, @haraldei_anduin.net wrote:

I think so, but only native code. The stack traces should still include all the information that the JVM itself handles.

Very good, there is likely only case: JVM crashes and dump file does contain any reasonable information for a backtrace.

In D48223#1105110, @michaelo wrote:

It depends, sometimes you simply cannot reproduce on non-prod. Does this affect jstack? This is often requested on the Tomcat mailing lists.

I think this should be ok. There are some parts of the handling of internal errors that tries to look up debug info to get better stacktraces, but I don't think that is important to production deployments.

@glewis With debug enabled I get this more useful message:

#  Internal Error (/home/haraldei/src/openjdk/src/hotspot/cpu/x86/macroAssembler_x86.cpp:4206), pid=14704, tid=109565
#  assert(is_aligned(set.size() * xmm_save_size(), StackAlignmentInBytes)) failed: must be

Update based on feedback:

Update patch based on feedback.

Rebased on top of bofh's openjdk22 additions.

Updated regex in Mk/bsd.java.mk and fixed indentation in openjdk23/Makefile

More changes based on feedback.

In D48194#1098993, @bofh wrote:

I have created a bug report https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=283600 for adding the openjdk22. Have a look at it as it will give some idea about the changes required.

Think I got all the parts of Mk/bsd.java.mk covered now, but please check as I'm not all that familiar with how it works.

Update based on feedback.