[CentOS] stock openjdk vs. epel

Mathieu Baudier mbaudier at argeo.org
Fri Jan 1 13:13:32 UTC 2010

> As luck would have it, I have copies of the java-1.6.0 b12 EPEL RPMS
> that were offered before Centos added java-1.6.0 b09 as an "upgrade"
> on my home page.

A lot of luck (or foresight...) indeed!

I used these old EPEL SRPMs + my experience of building the OpenJDK on
CentOS (see previous mails) in order to adapt the latest Fedora 12
OpenJdk SRPMs (Java 1.6.0 b16, using IcedTea 1.6).

It basically boils down to:
- remove visualvm and its netbeans dependency
- remove X11 patch
- workaround the plugin compilation issue (see previous mails) on
x86_64 (the EPEL SRPM was really helpful here)

You can download an SRPM from here:

And rebuild it with:
rpmbuild --rebuild java-1.6.0-openjdk-
(after having properly set up your RPM build environment:

You need to have the EPEL repo installed.

I could build it and test it on x86_64 but not on i386 (I'm abroad
with my x86_64 laptop, and changing the --target did not work, I'll
have a look at it when I'm back in the office next week).

I'm currently uploading the x86_64 RPMs but my connection is very bad,
so it may take the whole day (or have to wait until next week as well
if it fails)

The spec file can be seen here:

As well as the two original spec files I merged:

(you will have to accept our autogenerated SSL certificate)

A few disclaimers/comments:
- free software, no warranty, etc.
- this upgrades the base java-1.6.0-openjdk package thus you are not
in line with upstream anymore if you install it (I am considering to
package a version which could be installed in parallel)
- this is my first serious SRPM hacking, so comments/critics from more
experienced people are welcome!
- we are upgrading our infrastructure so the links above are subject
to change within the next few months. I'll keep the list posted about
what becomes of this (either contributing it to a third party repo, or
host it if nobody wants it)
- the tests failed and I deactivated hem (just as the EPEL package did
at the time). At first sight, it has to do with X11, so maybe part of
the X11 patch is needed after all. I'll try to have a look someday
(lesser priority though since we don't do much AWT, so help would be
welcome here if it is deemed important)

Many thanks again for your help!



More information about the CentOS mailing list