Thank you for the review!

• Change order of bootstrap variables based on feedback

If I could get a review on this patch today, it would be really helpful. As java/openjdk18 is expiring today, we need this in place to be able to build any of the jdks from 19 and up.

In D54608#1247967, @michaelo wrote:

In D54608#1247947, @haraldei wrote:

In D54608#1247892, @michaelo wrote:

Where does openjdk19-19.0.2+7.1_4.${JDK_ARCH}.tar.xz come from and how is it produced?

From pkg.freebsd.org. It's the release pkg file that has been extracted, moved to the boot-jdk directory and compressed and packed with tar. The only exception is the ppc64(le) tarballs as there's no official packages of these, so they are built by pkubaj@.

It seems that the port will never be selfcontained in the ports tree, no?

The OpenJDK ports were never self contained. They either depended on the port of the previous version, or in some cases a bootstrap-jdk that was installed to the system. The main difference in this approach is that we don't rely on the previous jdk, and we don't install the bootstrap-jdk to the system.

I see, it applies the Münchhausen trilemma which is logically flawed, but we cannot change it.

In D54608#1247892, @michaelo wrote:

Where does openjdk19-19.0.2+7.1_4.${JDK_ARCH}.tar.xz come from and how is it produced?

• java/openjdk19: Update bootstraps + add ppc64

In D54176#1244617, @michaelo wrote:

I think this should have happened *after* new bootstrap ports have emerged...

In D54176#1238034, @vvd wrote:

But there is no bootstrap in the ports for either 21 or 25.

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