>
> Any update? Any thoughts on when you want to merge the f33-java11 side tag back into
rawhide?
done
>
BTW There are some packages, e.g. built by ant with no sauce/target level specified at
all, that are
built with Java 11-level bytecode.
This is bad because if there is a dependent package that requires Java 8 for some reason
it won't
work because the bytecode of one your dependencies is too new and cannot be interpreted
by Java 8.
In these cases
I am fixing such occurrences in the ```f33-java11``` build target as I encounter them --
just
something to be aware of in case you see any UnsupportedClassVersionErrors.
Mat, I had come to same conclusion, which had lead me into this:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/javapackages-tools/pull-request/3#comm... .
Please
contriute, or sugest next steps here. I would liek to have it java-packaging gudelines
change, and
self-contained f33 change, but it may be to late.
I see yo already track the Fabio's to-high bytecode issue, but my proposal is to
prevent it in
future. However, it do not seem to be facing to much sympathies.
J.
--
Jiri Vanek
Senior QE engineer, OpenJDK QE lead, Mgr.
Red Hat Czech
jvanek(a)redhat.com M: +420775390109