Bug#906447: tomcat8: Errors thrown when connecting

[Markus Koschany]

Am 27.08.2018 um 07:32 schrieb Per Lundberg:
> On 8/26/18 12:46 AM, Markus Koschany wrote:
> 
>> I believe we should tighten the dependency on default-jre-headless. We
>> currently have for tomcat8-common:
>>
>> default-jre-headless | java8-runtime-headless | java8-runtime
>>
>> We should simply change that to
>>
>> default-jre-headless (>= 10) | java10-runtime-headless | java10-runtime
> 
> Why can't we just compile it with OpenJDK 8? There are some of us who
> are still stuck on Java 8 for various reasons (because of dependencies
> of other projects), and I think it would be more convenient to let the
> package be compiled for Java 8 for the time being. As long as Tomcat
> doesn't actually use any Java 10 features, I don't really see the big
> benefit of compiling it with OpenJDK 10 at this stage.

I believe you both misunderstand the current issue at hand. In Debian we
default to OpenJDK 10 at the moment and soon OpenJDK 11 because this
will be the only supported (security wise) runtime environment for
Debian 10 "Buster". We have to make sure that all our Java packages
build from source and work with OpenJDK 11 and Debian testing and
unstable are the only places where we can test our packages. Usually we
would ship only one JDK per release because of security reasons, so
compiling with OpenJDK 8 would not be an option.

The issue here is that tomcat8 8.5.32 used the source and target flags
and seemingly compiled to Java 7 bytecode. As explained in [1] that
often does not work as intended. The only way to make sure that we
compile to proper bytecode for an older platform, is by using the
--release flag now. We tried to simplify this step by patching the Ant
build tool but discovered that it would cause different build failures
in other packages.

The only way to fix this is to pass the --release flag to javac manually
and where appropriate. This was done upstream in 8.5.33 and your problem
should be addressed now.

However we highly recommend to use OpenJDK 11 from now on because
OpenJDK 8 will not receive any support in Buster.

Regards,

Markus

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/247

-------------- 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/20180827/95dc1672/attachment-0001.sig>