Skip to content

Completely removed support for Debian:buster #1220

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 20, 2025

Conversation

jmjaffe37
Copy link
Contributor

@jmjaffe37 jmjaffe37 commented Jul 23, 2025

This distro is over a year EOL and its default package servers went offline recently. This causes builds and PRs to fail since checkJdkDebian needs to run apt-get update on each docker-image that it tests on.

This PR implements option 1 described in this issue: #1218

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A block has been put on this Pull Request as this repository is temporarily under a code freeze due to an ongoing release cycle.

If this pull request needs to be merged during the release cycle then please comment /merge and a PMC member will be able to remove the block.

If the code freeze is over you can remove this block by commenting /thaw.

@jmjaffe37
Copy link
Contributor Author

@karianna I believe this is the PR that you want to merge to get "both" effects

Copy link
Contributor

@steelhead31 steelhead31 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.

Copy link
Member

@sxa sxa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Bear in mind that buster can still be used by any users who wish to (I wonder how many raspberry pis are out there still running a buster-based raspbian!). The repositories for buster have not been removed, but they are now in an archive repository. Adjusting sources.list accordingly means that buster is still usable. For that reason, I'd be somewhat -1 on removing it at this time, but we should perhaps stop it for new java releases.

This is similar to how we have not actively removed support for CentOS/RHEL versions that are out of support, which also require a similar fix to use an vault repository e.g. https://github.com/adoptium/infrastructure/blob/4f112e49583d5ef77be943ed72e5677671afe2ee/ansible/docker/Dockerfile.CentOS7#L8

While I appreciate that anyone on such a distribution may not be expecting security updates, I don't think suddenly removing that ability for our repository without warning is necessarily the best course of action here, and as a minimum it should at least be a PMC agenda item before removing it. Removing it now would (unless I'm mistaken) presumably mean that we would still make old Temurin versions available buster users. IMHO it would also be good if we could get the stats on how many users are hitting the repositories with the buster endpoints before making this decision.

For reference the following command is what's needed to set the repositories correctly to the archive ones - sed -i which is used for the CentOS vault ones should work too. I believe this would have been option 3 in the original issue.

perl -p -i -e 's/deb.debian.org/archive.debian.org/g' /etc/apt/sources.list

@sxa
Copy link
Member

sxa commented Jul 25, 2025

@steelhead31 Thinking about it I don't think we've got download stats for this repo have we, so we can't necessarily tell how many are accessing the buster URL?

@sxa
Copy link
Member

sxa commented Jul 25, 2025

(Also noting that there is a valid counter-argument to my earlier comment the other way, which is that if they have to move to the archive repository for the main packages, they should perhaps also adjust the adoptium repo to do s/buster/bookworm or similar, which would also still work and I think may be more consistent with what we do for Ubuntu STS releases)

@jmjaffe37
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sxa, I see your points. If we are currently doing this for the CentOS image(s), then we could do something similar here. That said, I think this is a good option for now for 2 reasons:

  1. If a user follows all the steps in the README.md at this time, they will be unable to create deb packages without experiencing an error due to a failed test. This will mess-up any automated pipelines that run this (I needed to implement this fix in the Microsoft mirror to get our automation to build these properly).
  2. I agree with your phrasing of the "valid counter-argument"

@karianna
Copy link
Contributor

Added PMC Agenda to this. I think it's worthy of a debate there on our "Do we support EOL platforms, and if so, under what circumstances" :-)

sxa
sxa previously requested changes Jul 30, 2025
Copy link
Member

@sxa sxa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm going to put a block on this for now as we were unable to have the discussion at this week's PMC call so it will be deferred until next week and I want to avoid this being merged in the meantime :-)

@jmjaffe37 jmjaffe37 force-pushed the jmj/remove_deb_buster_support branch from 2efc153 to 35e0917 Compare August 4, 2025 17:44
@jmjaffe37
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sxa, @karianna, are there any updates on this change? As a reminder, pipelines that build deb files are currently broken without this change since checkJdkDebian will always error until a change is made

@karianna
Copy link
Contributor

karianna commented Aug 4, 2025

PMC meeting this week to resolve hopefully

@sxa sxa dismissed their stale review August 13, 2025 13:44

Block was due to a desire for a PMC discussion.

@sxa
Copy link
Member

sxa commented Aug 13, 2025

@sxa, @karianna, are there any updates on this change? As a reminder, pipelines that build deb files are currently broken without this change since checkJdkDebian will always error until a change is made

I thought we'd updated the distribution which was used for building them independently of this, and this was purely to determine which distributions we would publish to in the apt repository going forward. Are you saying something additional is broken?

@@ -532,7 +532,6 @@ def uploadDebArtifacts(String buildArch, String Version) {
"trixie", // Debian/13
"bookworm", // Debian/12
"bullseye", // Debian/11
"buster", // Debian/10
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this should be left in the jenkinsfile, as its just used to publish packages in the artifactory repo.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed :)

@karianna
Copy link
Contributor

@jmjaffe37 some review comments for you.

@jmjaffe37 jmjaffe37 force-pushed the jmj/remove_deb_buster_support branch from 35e0917 to f9354a9 Compare August 14, 2025 16:29
@karianna karianna requested review from steelhead31 and sxa August 14, 2025 23:39
Copy link
Member

@sxa sxa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Idendation issue, but I'll defer to @steelhead31 for the fnal review when he's back next week.

@@ -507,6 +508,7 @@ def deb_versions = [
"trixie", // Debian/13
"bookworm", // Debian/12
"bullseye", // Debian/11
"buster", // Debian/10
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The indendation here looks inconsistent with the other lines

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@sxa, I noticed this in the GH UI as well, but it is consistent in my branch when I look at it locally through VS Code so I am unsure what it happening here

Copy link
Contributor

@steelhead31 steelhead31 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Indentation as above is inconsistent, but otherwise looks good. Approving

jmjaffe37 and others added 2 commits August 19, 2025 09:11
Co-authored-by: Scott Fryer <60462088+steelhead31@users.noreply.github.com>
@jmjaffe37
Copy link
Contributor Author

@karianna, @steelhead31, @sxa, @tellison, all requested changes are in. Please reapprove when possible and we can merge this fix into main :)

@sxa
Copy link
Member

sxa commented Aug 19, 2025

/thaw

@github-actions github-actions bot dismissed their stale review August 19, 2025 16:32

Pull Request unblocked - code freeze is over.

@steelhead31 steelhead31 merged commit 42a88f9 into adoptium:master Aug 20, 2025
67 checks passed
@jmjaffe37 jmjaffe37 deleted the jmj/remove_deb_buster_support branch August 20, 2025 17:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants