Project

General

Profile

Bug #8089

New package request: openjdk9

Added by Tianon Gravi over 1 year ago. Updated about 2 months ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
High
Assignee:
-
Category:
Package request
Target version:
Start date:
10/31/2017
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Affected versions:
Security IDs:

Description

The "openjdk" Docker official images consume OpenJDK releases directly from Alpine for the "-alpine" variants, and we've had a lot of requests for the very recently GA OpenJDK 9 series (http://jdk.java.net/9/).

Any chance of seeing that in a release sometime soon? The 3.7 release is coming up, and it'd be really neat to have that included!

Thanks for all your work on the OpenJDK packages in Alpine. <3

History

#1 Updated by Natanael Copa over 1 year ago

  • Category set to Package request
  • Target version set to 3.7.0

#2 Updated by Natanael Copa over 1 year ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to High

#3 Updated by Bob Vandette over 1 year ago

Any idea when 3.7 will be out?

If you need any support from Oracle to make this happen, please contact me ().

#4 Updated by Natanael Copa over 1 year ago

  • Target version changed from 3.7.0 to 3.8.0

#5 Updated by Cemo Koc over 1 year ago

Since 3.8.0 is targeted on 07.05.2018, It might be better to change the scope of this issue to support openjdk10. JDK10 will be available on 03.18 and at the time of 3.8.0 release, it will be GA.

#6 Updated by Remo Meier over 1 year ago

it is a bit shocking to see that there is no official java/alpine support for such a long time. Hopefully this gets resolved before Java 10.

#7 Updated by Thibault Meyer about 1 year ago

To get small image on Docker, is it possible to split package in two distinct package (openjre9 and openjdk9). It could easily save 40% of memory.

#8 Updated by Alan Artigao Carreño about 1 year ago

OpenJDK 10 went to GA 2 weeks ago. Shouldn't we support it like Cemo Koc said instead of OpenJDK 9?

I'm afraid that many teams use -alpine versions of Docker and it's somewhat a stopper (even more now that Java releases happen every 6 months).

#9 Updated by Sören Chittka about 1 year ago

There seems to be some kind of official work on this: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/portola/

#10 Updated by Simon Mottram 11 months ago

The last work on portola was 9 months ago, jdk10 2 months ago.

Either this project is fading and Alpine is going to die off or they will skip direct to 10

#11 Updated by A S 11 months ago

The portola project lead Mikael Vidstedt was looking at the interest in the project. As for now I think he is not convinced of the valiue...

https://twitter.com/sumek/status/984363352511188992

https://twitter.com/MikaelVidstedt/status/985567401050685441

#12 Updated by Simon Mottram 11 months ago

This is very worrying, that the project lead is dubious of the value of the project.

There is no survey I can find directly but the conventional wisdom is that Java is the most commonly used language for microservices. So why would he not understand that the Alpine, the smallest Linux image, is not critical? I'm perplexed, maybe he is anti-Docker? I don't know, I'm frankly boggled and very concerned for the future of Java on Alpine.

I have tried to contact him on Twitter for his thoughts, no joy.

#13 Updated by A S 11 months ago

Simon Mottram wrote:

This is very worrying, that the project lead is dubious of the value of the project.

There is no survey I can find directly but the conventional wisdom is that Java is the most commonly used language for microservices. So why would he not understand that the Alpine, the smallest Linux image, is not critical? I'm perplexed, maybe he is anti-Docker? I don't know, I'm frankly boggled and very concerned for the future of Java on Alpine.

I have tried to contact him on Twitter for his thoughts, no joy.

Actually Mikael Vidstedts job is employed by Oracle as Director of Software Engineering, Java Virtual Machine. It might well outside his duties to take care of Alpine port. IMHO, it's the Alpine Linux should take care of having fully pathched, up-to-date JVM version.

Personally, I would be happy to have up-to-date JVM on Alpine coming from any source ... :)

#14 Updated by Natanael Copa 10 months ago

  • Target version changed from 3.8.0 to 3.8.1

#15 Updated by Natanael Copa 7 months ago

  • Target version changed from 3.8.1 to 3.8.2

#16 Updated by Sören Chittka 7 months ago

Maybe this should be updated to openjdk11?

#17 Updated by Cemo Koc 7 months ago

Maybe 12? :)

#18 Updated by Simon Mottram 7 months ago

The early access jdk11 build had been removed from the website and the notes say to use jdk12ea. I seriously think there is no enthusiasm for an alpine build within the project.

I don't understand this at all as Java is the most popular language for micro services (and not so micro). Surely the smallest Linux image is the best choice for OS.

Are they skeptical about the whole micro service model?

I don't understand this world!
________________________
From:
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 9:22 p.m.
To:
Subject: [Alpine Linux - Bug #8089] New package request: openjdk9

Issue #8089<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.alpinelinux.org%2Fissues%2F8089%23change-25903&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1df396161f9743af3efd08d62a9bb5b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636743245582749985&sdata=%2BafeTnzgM0ybI%2F9Vcc7qWxKZV6FEHYNbb5cQOhQczZw%3D&reserved=0> has been updated by Cemo Koc.
________________________

Maybe 12? :)

________________________
Bug #8089: New package request: openjdk9<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.alpinelinux.org%2Fissues%2F8089%23change-25903&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1df396161f9743af3efd08d62a9bb5b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636743245582749985&sdata=%2BafeTnzgM0ybI%2F9Vcc7qWxKZV6FEHYNbb5cQOhQczZw%3D&reserved=0>

  • Author: Tianon Gravi * Status: New * Priority: High * Assignee: * Category: Package request * Target version: 3.8.2 * Affected versions:

The "openjdk" Docker official images consume OpenJDK releases directly from Alpine for the "-alpine" variants, and we've had a lot of requests for the very recently GA OpenJDK 9 series (http://jdk.java.net/9/&lt;https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjdk.java.net%2F9%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1df396161f9743af3efd08d62a9bb5b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636743245582749985&sdata=fmbmn7nprLJD4%2BvAA7JXLaBss7LyHtMY2D5VJOBUsEs%3D&reserved=0&gt;).

Any chance of seeing that in a release sometime soon? The 3.7 release is coming up, and it'd be really neat to have that included!

Thanks for all your work on the OpenJDK packages in Alpine. <3


You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it.
To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://bugs.alpinelinux.org/my/account&lt;https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.alpinelinux.org%2Fmy%2Faccount&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1df396161f9743af3efd08d62a9bb5b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636743245582749985&sdata=qwY4QAxoon%2B%2BAO89xfqT7ONqr5%2Bh5tIe0ASDED7qRm4%3D&reserved=0>

#19 Updated by Tianon Gravi 7 months ago

Simon Mottram wrote:

The early access jdk11 build had been removed from the website and the notes say to use jdk12ea. I seriously think there is no enthusiasm for an alpine build within the project.

I don't understand this at all as Java is the most popular language for micro services (and not so micro). Surely the smallest Linux image is the best choice for OS.

Are they skeptical about the whole micro service model?

I don't understand this world!

See https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/pull/235#issuecomment-424599754 -- it's not an issue of skepticality, but more one of manpower. If there are folks in the Alpine community who can contribute time/resources to making Project Portola successful, they're definitely looking for help (and that's the reason the Alpine builds disappeared from the site after GA -- they're not GA ready).

#20 Updated by P B 4 months ago

Azul seems to have gotten OpenJDK going on Alpine and passes the full OpenJDK TCK Java compliance suite, see https://www.azul.com/downloads/zulu/zulu-download-alpine/

How does this factor into this bug report?

#21 Updated by Natanael Copa 4 months ago

  • Target version changed from 3.8.2 to 3.8.3

#22 Updated by Simon Mottram 4 months ago

The Azul jdk seems fine so far, thanks for the tip!

#23 Updated by Natanael Copa about 2 months ago

  • Target version changed from 3.8.3 to 3.10.0

Also available in: Atom PDF