Bug#903428: javadocs generated by javahelper include jquery

[Markus Koschany]

Hi tony,

Am 17.07.2018 um 07:00 schrieb tony mancill:
[...]
>  
> Hi Markus,
> 
> Fair enough.  I can see the value in providing javadoc (or at least a
> way to build the javadoc) for older versions of libraries. 
> 
> I think Martin Quinson's suggestion of "shim" jquery package has some
> merit.  It means that we would have to touch every -java-doc package -
> 475 of them, by my current count - but I'm not sure that can be avoided
> unless we take the path of patching openjdk-11 to use the Debian system
> library.

I believe that every solution that involves patching all of our javadoc
packages is not a good one. :) Of course Martin can depend on Debian's
system jquery and use dh_link to replace the embedded copy with the one
installed on the system but I'm far too lazy too consider this a
worthwhile task for myself. It's not efficient, so to speak ;)

I'm in favor of tackling the issue at the root, openjdk-11. I will take
a closer look at DebConf18 and prepare a patch and resubmit my bug
report. Everything else is up to doko.

> And finally, although I'm still biased towards working on better runtime
> support (to wit, libjide-oss-java is currently FTBFS, so the lintian
> jquery warning seems less important than that), I don't think we should
> ignore the problem and don't want anyone to feel unnecessarily "meh"
> about it either... :)
> 
> Other ideas?

I agree there are a lot more interesting problems to work on but it's
far easier to solve than many of the other ones. As for
libjide-oss-java: I have reported the FTBFS months ago but it doesn't
look like that we will see a real solution soon. They depend on
functionality which was simply removed with OpenJDK 10. Fortunately only
some windows-specific classes are affected, so I could ultimately patch
them out and work around it. However we should strongly consider to ship
OpenJDK 8 with Buster. Then I could just build-depend on it and be done
for now and maybe in two years time there is a better solution. Actually
I don't see a reason why we couldn't do it, provided we mark OpenJDK 8
EOL security-wise and just use it for building/developing packages.

The most important problem is JavaFX at the moment because without that
libjide-oss-java is just another library. The reason why it was packaged
is mediathekview but without JavaFX is won't be part of Buster anyway
(and PDFsam, and Netbeans, and...)

Cheers,

Markus


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20180717/8977248e/attachment.sig>