cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rohit Yadav <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Moving for JDK8, this time for real!
Date Thu, 05 Jan 2017 14:45:58 GMT

The PR I've proposed does not change the base Debian distro, it's still Debian 7 (wheezy)
and not Jessie. I would like to avoid making too many changes in the same PR, especially moving
to Jessie which won't be straight forward as it would introduce several changes, major package
version changes, systemd usage etc.

What I'm proposing is simple -- moving to jdk8 for building CloudStack (this works flawlessly
now), and using jre-8 on systemvm template.


From: Erik Weber <>
Sent: 05 January 2017 18:25:38
To: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving for JDK8, this time for real!

53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Rohit Yadav <> wrote:
> All,
> I've been working on moving our codebase and runtime-environment to Java 8, and since
this is a much needed big change I want your feedback and blessings on:
> In order for this to work, I had to make changes in our veewee-based systemvmtemplate
build scripts to install a third party opensource openjdk-8-jre distribution (xulu-8 is a
openjdk-8 distribution from Azul, please review and advise wrt their terms of usage here:, since
> Debian 7 (wheezy) repositories don't have openjdk-8-jre and installing openjdk-8-jre
from testing/sid updates several system packages such as libc that I wanted to avoid. Accepting
this change on master/4.10 would require us to have a new systemvmtemplate for 4.10+ releases.
> With these changes, I've ran smoke tests across KVM, VMware and XenServer in the following
PR and all of the tests are passing (ignoring known intermittent failures in vpc/rvr related
> Thoughts, feedback?

Wheezy has roughly 1 year left (until May 2018) before it is EOL.
Since 4.10 is not LTS and the fact that both Java8 and Debian Jessie
could have hard to find issues I would suggest that you update the
systemvm now, and work through bugs and quirks throught the 4.10.x
I believe there are other changes, like strongswan, as well that could
make 4.10 a potentially unstable version?

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message