openjdk-10 and -11 should only be released in the 18.04 LTS updates pocket

We need continuity of *binary* package names for clean upgrades in LTS, not just of source package name.

Matthias, could you please update the description of this bug to explain why this package is required and what are the benefits of it?

The current package is basically openjdk-9 renamed and - as Steve pointed out - this won't make migration easier if the binaries it generates keep changing their names.

Steve's proposal is to have a openjdk-11 package with openjdk 10 sources (and version) until we get to 11's GA. [1]

I quickly discussed with Steve about - upon openjdk 11 release - having openjdk-10 as a transitional/dummy package depending on openjdk-11, but that's a worse solution than openjdk-lts package (or the above solution) as users might hardcode openjdk-10 paths into scripts. That's one of the reasons for pushing same-name binaries for the 10->11 migration.

[1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/2018-March/004364.html

The *binary* package names are default-jre*, default-jdk* and so on. Packages should not depend on particular openjdk versions anyway. I am more concerned to change a packaging schema having the major in the binary name for more than a decade just a few weeks before an LTS release. So no, I don't think that having the binary name change changed that short before release makes any sense.

With the proposal here you have binary packages with the expected name in the release (either in the release pocket for 8 and 9), or in the updates pocket (10 and 11). In the end the 10 packages can go away because we are able to remove them from the updates pocket. The 9 binary packages are not built from source anymore, and could be replaced by dummy (empty) packages in the updates pocket.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 03:21:16AM -0000, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The *binary* package names are default-jre*, default-jdk* and so on.
> Packages should not depend on particular openjdk versions anyway.

Stating this does not make it true for the users who are consuming these
packages via the archive. If someone installs 'default-jre', then
hard-codes the openjdk-10 path in their usage, then applies security
updates, they end up not running the security-updated JRE, despite using a
package that's in main.

> I am more concerned to change a packaging schema having the major in the
> binary name for more than a decade just a few weeks before an LTS release.
> So no, I don't think that having the binary name change changed that short
> before release makes any sense.

Then I believe the short path to this is to name it openjdk-11 version 10.x.

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

both source packages are removed in the release pocket