Mystery meat OpenJDK builds strike again

Gil Tene gil at
Tue May 28 16:09:26 UTC 2019

> On May 27, 2019, at 3:19 AM, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 11:13, Florian Weimer <fweimer at <mailto:fweimer at>> wrote:
> * Gil Tene:
> > root at 020dc36b9046:/# java -version
> > openjdk version "1.8.0_212"
> > OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_212-8u212-b01-1~deb9u1-b01)
> > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.212-b01, mixed mode)
> > root at 020dc36b9046:/#
> I wonder if the core technical issue is this: Debian stretch currently
> packages OpenJDK 8 8u212-b01, when it should be packaging 8u212-b03 or
> 8u212-b04 (which one isn't clear, the release announcement
> < <>>
> was for 8u212-b03, not for 8u212-b04 or 8u212-ga).
> My understanding is that 8u212-b01 is a version identifier created by
> the jdk8u project, and based on a quick check, it matches what Debian
> identifies as its upstream sources (except for some stripping of system
> library components).  But it's not the most current release.
> It's one of the challenges, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily know about the new `-ga` tag that we use to designate releases, so we need to go and help them.

Let's be clear about what the new (as in "additional") -ga tag is, in order
to avoid the misunderstanding (that you can see in other threads) that
somehow OpenJDK has just now started declaring releases:

The notion of a "-ga" tag was added recently as a convenience mechanism
to help people  "identify snapshots of GA releases in Mercurial history without
having to know the build number of the GA release".

for initial discussion).
To quote from there:
"For example, to obtain JDK 10.0.2 GA sources today, one issues the
`hg update -r jdk-10.0.2+13` command. With the proposed
enhancement, `hg update -r jdk-10.0.2-ga` could have been used."

[GA and other] Releases
existed long before this tag was added, and every [GA and other] Release
has a known tag number.

The "-ga" tag is a welcome addition, and makes it much easier (fewer steps)
to find the sources for a release, as well as programmatically watch
for ones to appear.

> I've also replied separately to this thread (with a meeting request) but cut out the OpenJDK mailing lists as it's really the Debian distro list that we should be discussing this on.
> If folks feel otherwise, let me know and I'll CC these lists back in.
> Cheers,
> Martijn
> Thanks,
> Florian

More information about the jdk-updates-dev mailing list