Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update JDK22 Installer files for JDK22+36 Release #844

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 23, 2024

Conversation

steelhead31
Copy link
Contributor

@steelhead31 steelhead31 commented Mar 21, 2024

These files have s390x removed due to some blocking tests, this PR will allow publishing of all other linux installers. A 2nd PR to publish the s390x installers ( and an additional one to come will also be made, to include riscv support )

@steelhead31 steelhead31 changed the title Update JDK22 Installer files for JDK22+36 Release DO NOT MERGE - Update JDK22 Installer files for JDK22+36 Release Mar 21, 2024
Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A block has been put on this Pull Request as this repository is temporarily under a code freeze due to an ongoing release cycle.

If this pull request needs to be merged during the release cycle then please comment /merge and a PMC member will be able to remove the block.

If the code freeze is over you can remove this block by commenting /thaw.

@steelhead31 steelhead31 force-pushed the upd_installers_jdk22 branch from cf4d9bf to bda16e1 Compare March 21, 2024 15:52
@steelhead31 steelhead31 marked this pull request as ready for review March 21, 2024 17:32
@steelhead31 steelhead31 changed the title DO NOT MERGE - Update JDK22 Installer files for JDK22+36 Release Update JDK22 Installer files for JDK22+36 Release Mar 21, 2024
Copy link
Member

@sxa sxa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll approve this on the basis that if it doesn't work you know how to clear it up ;-)

%global spec_release 1
%global priority 1161
%global priority 2200
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where does this number come from? They don't seem to be consistent across versions.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To the best of my knowledge, it has to be the same for all versions of a package. I don't think we actually use it anywhere, but maybe @jiekang can offer some insight ?

Copy link
Contributor

@jiekang jiekang Mar 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's used for the priority value in alternatives, a Linux tool for selecting the JDK to use for a system. For example here: https://github.com/adoptium/installer/blob/master/linux/jdk/redhat/src/main/packaging/temurin/21/temurin-21-jdk.spec#L166

The comments and usage in the Fedora spec share some insight:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-21-openjdk/blob/rawhide/f/java-21-openjdk.spec#_339

It looks like they should mimic the jdk version and be updated when releasing new versions.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @jiekang I am writing some documentation about the installers, and how to update them so I'll include this note alongside the other things, I think 2200 is good for the base release then, but we could update it to follow, the fedora spec.. which I think would give us 22000036 for this release ?

# Using 10 digits may overflow the int used for priority, so we combine the patch and build versions
# It is very unlikely we will ever have a patch version > 4 or a build version > 20, so we combine as (patch * 20) + build.
# This means 11.0.9.0+11 would have had a priority of 11000911 as before
# A 11.0.9.1+1 would have had a priority of 11000921 (20 * 1 + 1), thus ensuring it is bigger than 11.0.9.0+11
%global combiver $( expr 20 '*' %{patchver} + %{buildver} )
%global priority %( printf '%02d%02d%02d%02d' %{featurever} %{interimver} %{updatever} %{combiver} )

@tellison
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

Copy link

Approval to merge during the lockdown cycle

Please can two Adoptium PMC members comment /approve?

@tellison
Copy link
Contributor

/approve

1 similar comment
@gdams
Copy link
Member

gdams commented Mar 23, 2024

/approve

@github-actions github-actions bot dismissed their stale review March 23, 2024 15:26

Thank you @tellison and @gdams for your approvals, this pull request is now approved to merge during release.

@gdams gdams merged commit a174840 into adoptium:master Mar 23, 2024
15 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants