* Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> [2011-08-26 11:58]:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:29:33AM -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> Andrew Haley and I just had a chat about this.
> We both agree that weaning off the 1.6 dependency is the best long-term
> solution. We essentially want it so that nothing in Fedora needs 1.6.
> That said, we will continue to ship 1.6 since 3rd party apps may need
> it. We will however remove the alternatives for 1.6, so using them will
> require the user to manually set JAVA_HOME to
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0..../ and call the java binary from that dir.
> This will prevent someone from accidentally switching the system
> alterne ative to 1.6 and having (1.7 built) apps fail.
Look into environment-modules as a possible aid to the end user :
I've always wondered why we used alternatives for java when it seems like
it's a per user or per application setting rather than a per-host setting
With Fedora, we currently only distribute GCJ and OpenJDK6, and OpenJDK6
is fully capable of running everything GCJ can (on supported archs), so
there is no situation where one app needs one and another needs the
Introduction of 1.7 is the first such case where this may hold true. And
even then, we would like the overlap to be as little as possible and
switch over to Java 7 completely.
Frankly, there is little if any need for alternatives for java in Fedora
given that there is only OpenJDK. However we keep it in case users want
to install 3rd party JDKs/JREs via the jpackage-wrapper RPM.
> Are there any major objections to the above?
Yeah, I'm with Peter Robinson that this change is coming too late in the
cycle. Alpha has already shipped. FESCo could disagree but it *must* go to
FESCo for them to give you permission.
Oh definitely. I intend to get FESCo approval before making the
change. I just wanted to see if there were any objections here first..
> In the mean time, I am going to start building all java
> currently in F16 against 1.7 only to see the scope of changes that will
> be needed.
> to east
Do you need a separate build tag setup so you can do this testing without
disturbing normal builds?
I am just using mock. Since it is just to test if Java 7 can build it, I
was going to install all BRs of packages that need java to build, and
then just build them one after another. It might be faster this way than
doing individual builds given the # of packages.
I will let you know if anything changes and I do need the tag though.
Thanks for the offer!