In D59519#1373948, @pkubaj wrote:

It looks like you're still missing one patch mentioned previously:

--- src/hotspot/os_cpu/bsd_ppc/prefetch_bsd_ppc.inline.hpp.orig 2026-09-03 11:42:54 UTC
+++ src/hotspot/os_cpu/bsd_ppc/prefetch_bsd_ppc.inline.hpp
@@ -26,8 +26,6 @@
 #ifndef OS_CPU_BSD_PPC_VM_PREFETCH_BSD_PPC_INLINE_HPP
 #define OS_CPU_BSD_PPC_VM_PREFETCH_BSD_PPC_INLINE_HPP

-#include "runtime/prefetch.hpp"
-

 inline void Prefetch::read(const void *loc, intx interval) {
   __asm__ __volatile__ (

@pkubaj Could you please check if this is ok now? Thanks!

Bumb build num and add extra patch for PPC64 build

In D59519#1369052, @pkubaj wrote:

Corrected:

In D59519#1365766, @pkubaj wrote:

--- src/hotspot/os_cpu/bsd_ppc/vm_version_bsd_ppc.cpp.orig  2026-09-03 11:42:54 UTC
+++ src/hotspot/os_cpu/bsd_ppc/vm_version_bsd_ppc.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 1997, 2025, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (c) 2012, 2025 SAP SE. All rights reserved.
+ * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.

In D59519#1365784, @pkubaj wrote:

Also, PORTREVISION shouldn't be set for a new port.

OpenJDK27 will be released by upstream on Sept 15. It's most likely going to be the version tagged here, but if there's any updates I'll update the patch.

In D59304#1361527, @vsasjason_gmail.com wrote:

In D59304#1361038, @haraldei wrote:

Fix typo and tab-alignment

I would suggest always running portfmt after making any changes to Makefiles. This way, you would almost never worry about tabs/spaces, line wraps, etc.

...and the double newline

Fix typo and tab-alignment

In D59167#1360507, @vsasjason_gmail.com wrote:

Is there any specific reason for checking flavor twice? Putting USES + USE_XORG into same conditional would be nicer. Or just leaving USE_XORG as is because it's no-op without USES=... xorg ....

Removed BUILD_DEPENDS lines no longer needed after 25.0.4 and 26.0.2, and
updates commit message to reflect this.

Address review comments.

Mainly just a check that I got the field in the commit message right, but feel free to have a look to see if the patches looks ok too.

In D58841#1352268, @vvd wrote:

This change broke build of databases/sqldeveloper in poudriere:
https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/beefy23/data/150amd64-default/0c6548094723/logs/sqldeveloper-24.3.1.347.1826_3.log

In D58841#1350633, @jrm wrote:

It's probably the spaces before the : catching the subject line hook. You could either get rid of those spaces, or use java/openjdk{8,11}: Remove USE_LDCONFIG from ports, which is a format I see in the logs.

The patch is rejected because of the subject line: "java/openjdk8 + 11: ..." Should I split it in two, or is there an established way of marking that it affects more than one port?

In D58841#1350374, @jrm wrote:

One nit: In the commit log, PR: expects only the bug number to automatically update the bug, not the full URL.

This change was pushed in commit https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=7878106082fd1f07814d754ef767c1f59168d1e9

Incremented portrev and added sponsored-by tag

Updated commit message

In D56522#1293796, @fuz wrote:

Note that you don't need to file a DR for such trivial updates

Trivial update to latest version, 25.0.3. Assuming this is the tag that will be released by upstream tomorrow. Otherwise I'll update the patch accordingly.

In D56125#1290365, @pkubaj wrote:

Damn, I forgot about this review. But fixing those compilation errors from the PR and the one reported here is only one part of the problem. Another one is that the built binary crashes (still before the package is built). I needed to sync os_bsd_ppc.cpp with os_linux_ppc.cpp to fix that. I'm not sure which single change actually fixed the crash.

@jrm Ah, cool! Was worried I had forgotten about something. But I don't want to take credit for your work, so if you want to commit it yourself, that's probably better?

In D56125#1283835, @fuz wrote:

Now fails to build like so:

ERROR: Build failed for target 'images' in configuration 'bsd-ppc64le-server-release' (exit code 2)

=== Output from failing command(s) repeated here ===
* For target hotspot_variant-server_libjvm_objs_precompiled_precompiled.hpp.pch:
In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/share/precompiled/precompiled.hpp:32:
In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/share/classfile/javaClasses.inline.hpp:28:
In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/share/classfile/javaClasses.hpp:28:
In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/share/classfile/vmClasses.hpp:30:
In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/share/runtime/handles.hpp:29:
In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/share/oops/oop.hpp:36:
In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/share/runtime/atomicAccess.hpp:859:
In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/os_cpu/bsd_ppc/atomicAccess_bsd_ppc.hpp:27:
In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/atomicAccess_ppc.hpp:33:
/wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/orderAccess_ppc.hpp:70:28: error: redefinition of 'loadload'
   70 | inline void   OrderAccess::loadload()   { inlasm_lwsync(); }
      |                            ^
/wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/src/hotspot/os_cpu/bsd_ppc/orderAccess_bsd_ppc.hpp:72:28: note: previous definition is here
   72 | inline void   OrderAccess::loadload()   { inlasm_lwsync(); }
      |                            ^
   ... (rest of output omitted)

* All command lines available in /wrkdirs/usr/ports/java/openjdk26/work-jdk/openjdk-jdk-26-35-2/build/bsd-ppc64le-server-release/make-support/failure-logs.
=== End of repeated output ===

In D56125#1283797, @fuz wrote:

In D56125#1283796, @haraldei wrote:

For some reason pkg thinks version 26+35.1_1 is greater than 26+35.2. Not sure how this will affect upgrades or the pkg builders?

You sure? My pkg says:

$ pkg version -t 26+35.1_1 26+35.2 
<

For some reason pkg thinks version 26+35.1_1 is greater than 26+35.2. Not sure how this will affect upgrades or the pkg builders?

@fuz If you have an ARM box I can use, that would be great. Otherwise I can set up a VM too. I will either have to work my way up from openjdk8, or see if I can use a jdk for another arch to bootstrap it. The latter should be possible, but I haven't done that before, so will have to explore a bit.

Thanks for the reviews!

In D55938#1279966, @jrm wrote:

Considering the diff [0] between this and java/openjdk25 is quite minimal, I think we're pretty safe.

In D55589#1271778, @fuz wrote:

LGTM. Please bump PORTREVISION for this kind of change. You can add that in when you land the fix.

Remove relnote info from pkg-descr

Thanks a lot!