Skip to content

Conversation

farnoy
Copy link
Member

@farnoy farnoy commented Jul 7, 2025

Things done

  • Built on platform(s)
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
    • sandbox = relaxed
    • sandbox = true
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Nixpkgs 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 25.05 Nixpkgs Release notes)
    • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • NixOS 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 25.05 NixOS Release notes)
    • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
    • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md, pkgs/README.md, maintainers/README.md and other contributing documentation in corresponding paths.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added 6.topic: java Including JDK, tooling, other languages, other VMs 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Linux. 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Darwin. labels Jul 7, 2025
@farnoy farnoy force-pushed the push-rpxnmuymkoty branch 2 times, most recently from b4f4396 to 8127dd3 Compare July 7, 2025 17:06
@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

This should resolve Issue #423071 and overlaps with PR #423088.

Copy link
Contributor

@msgilligan msgilligan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like how this PR adds 24 without removing 23. I would like to see this (eventually) become the standard way Nixpkgs migrates to new JDKs. (i.e. new JDK versions are added and previous non-LTS versions are removed a short time later)

Note that there is also a formatting error with this PR.

propagatedBuildInputs = (prev.propagatedBuildInputs or []) ++ [ onnxruntime ];
postFixup = (prev.postFixup or "") + ''
patchelf --replace-needed libonnxruntime.so.1.18.0 libonnxruntime.so.1 $out/lib/svm/profile_inference/onnx/native/libonnxruntime4j_jni.so
'';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How does this differ from the autoPatchelfIgnoreMissingDeps approach used in PR #423088 ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@emaryn I think your version of this PR was probably best, it's too bad you closed it. I was mostly just trying to get it to work first and what you reviewed was not a cleaned u pversion, but I agree that patchelf step should only be done on 24 onwards.

I think the issue requesting an update to the package and our PRs all landed in quick succession, I was not aware of either that issue or your PR when I worked on this.

As for keeping older versions around, I'm not sure what the best policy is, maintaining these versions is probably not a big deal (until the build system changes but I think that's unlikely), but a warning about EOL would be nice to have.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@farnoy I would recommend creating a PR to remove the JDK 23 version immediately after this one is merged.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And the rest of @emaryn's PR should be implemented (as yet another PR I would suggest) to add JDK 21 and EOL JDK 17.

@msgilligan msgilligan requested a review from a user July 13, 2025 22:57
@msgilligan msgilligan mentioned this pull request Jul 13, 2025
13 tasks
@ghost ghost removed their request for review July 13, 2025 23:12
msgilligan added a commit to msgilligan/nixpkgs that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2025
Fix Nix formatting issue that is failing GitHub Actions checks.
This should be squashed into PR NixOS#423224
@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

@farnoy I made a draft PR that adds a commit fixing the formatting issues that are causing the two failing checks: PR #425010.

The second commit has the changes you need. Feel free to squash it into your PR. See farnoy@4b09641

@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

msgilligan commented Jul 14, 2025

@farnoy I made a draft PR that adds a commit fixing the formatting issues that are causing the two failing checks: PR #425010.
The second commit has the changes you need. Feel free to squash it into your PR. See farnoy@4b09641

Please use the review function. Opening such a PR is not only inconvenient but also narrows the scope of discussion. If you want, you can also open a new PR in nixpkgs.

I thought there was a way to propose changes to be merged via the review function as I've had people do that to my PRs before. That's what I was trying to do. In this case I was just trying to make it easy for the PR author to resolve the PR / Lint / treefmt failure.

@farnoy farnoy force-pushed the push-rpxnmuymkoty branch from 8127dd3 to e7249f3 Compare July 16, 2025 16:15
@farnoy
Copy link
Member Author

farnoy commented Jul 16, 2025

I've updated the MR @msgilligan @emaryn , it's still strictly additive (not removing any past versions), applying the autopatchelf override for 24 only, and with fixed formatting I hope. Should be mergeable in the current form 🤞

Copy link
Contributor

@msgilligan msgilligan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes LGTM. I built and installed on aarch64-darwin and did test builds of two Java projects.

I have one question though: Why "24" and not "24.0.2" which is the latest GraalVM Oracle build?

@msgilligan msgilligan self-requested a review July 16, 2025 16:54
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added the 12.approvals: 1 This PR was reviewed and approved by one person. label Jul 16, 2025
@farnoy
Copy link
Member Author

farnoy commented Jul 16, 2025

Changes LGTM. I built and installed on aarch64-darwin and did test builds of two Java projects.

I have one question though: Why "24" and not "24.0.2" which is the latest GraalVM Oracle build?

Only the older releases have a stable archive download link, I believe. I see 24.0.1 in the archive

https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/graalvm-jdk24-archive-downloads.html

As of now, 24.0.2 is available here: https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/downloads/?er=221886

But the full download link is not stable, they update it in place AFAIK https://download.oracle.com/java/24/latest/jdk-24_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz

@farnoy
Copy link
Member Author

farnoy commented Jul 16, 2025

Huh, the 24.0.2 are available in the archive although they don't list them. I'll update to that version instead

@farnoy farnoy force-pushed the push-rpxnmuymkoty branch 2 times, most recently from 47e9c13 to 00d7959 Compare July 16, 2025 17:51
@farnoy farnoy changed the title graalvm-oracle_24: init at 24 graalvm-oracle_24: init at 24.0.2 Jul 16, 2025
@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

BTW @farnoy I have started working on a Nixpkgs utility to report on versions and other metadata of all the JDKs in Nixpkgs, see Issue #425860.

@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

I created a PR for graalvmPackages.graalvm-oracle_25-ea based on this PR :

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/5759

@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

@farnoy if you can make the change requested by SuperSandro2000 above, then I will run nixpkgs-review on aarch64-linux and aarch64-darwin.

@farnoy farnoy force-pushed the push-rpxnmuymkoty branch from 00d7959 to 53ca5ed Compare August 14, 2025 13:00
@farnoy farnoy force-pushed the push-rpxnmuymkoty branch from 53ca5ed to 7011644 Compare August 14, 2025 13:04
@farnoy
Copy link
Member Author

farnoy commented Aug 14, 2025

@msgilligan @SuperSandro2000 Should be good now

@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 423224
Commit: 70116444439eb6e07b1db85f8e419a1bb3e1aa2f


aarch64-linux

✅ 1 package built:
  • graalvmPackages.graalvm-oracle (graalvmPackages.graalvm-oracle_24)

@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 423224
Commit: 70116444439eb6e07b1db85f8e419a1bb3e1aa2f


aarch64-darwin

✅ 1 package built:
  • graalvmPackages.graalvm-oracle (graalvmPackages.graalvm-oracle_24)

Copy link
Contributor

@msgilligan msgilligan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. Tested with nixpkgs-review on aarch64-linux and aarch64-darwin

@msgilligan msgilligan mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2025
13 tasks
@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

I've added a child PR to drop graalvm-oracle_23:

@msgilligan
Copy link
Contributor

@NixOS/java This needs review.

@SuperSandro2000 SuperSandro2000 merged commit 54e82f8 into NixOS:master Aug 22, 2025
27 of 28 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
6.topic: java Including JDK, tooling, other languages, other VMs 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Linux. 12.approvals: 1 This PR was reviewed and approved by one person.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants