Re: Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Miro Hrončok]

On 25. 10. 19 19:30, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently default Java runtime in Fedora is OpenJDK 8. This is not the
> latest OpenJDK packaged, but still remains system-default version.
> Because of that Apache Maven and Apache Ant in Fedora are built using
> OpenJDK 8 and run on OpenJDK 8.
>
> I am planning to switch Maven 3.6 and Ant 1.10 modules to build with
> and run on OpenJDK 11, which is the latest LTS release of OpenJDK.
> This also means that future streams of javapackages-tools module will
> default to use OpenJDK 11 for building packages. Please let me know if
> you have any concerns.

Hello, I am not very familiar with how Java works in this regard, but since this 
is the default stream etc., wouldn't it be wise to coordinate such change with a 
general OpenJDK 11 default Fedora system wide change?

E.g. would the dependent OpenJDK 8 packages still build in stable releases if 
this change is done globally and for example if Ursa Major/Prime/... is activated?

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Mikolaj Izdebski]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:47 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> On 25. 10. 19 19:30, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Currently default Java runtime in Fedora is OpenJDK 8. This is not the
> > latest OpenJDK packaged, but still remains system-default version.
> > Because of that Apache Maven and Apache Ant in Fedora are built using
> > OpenJDK 8 and run on OpenJDK 8.
> >
> > I am planning to switch Maven 3.6 and Ant 1.10 modules to build with
> > and run on OpenJDK 11, which is the latest LTS release of OpenJDK.
> > This also means that future streams of javapackages-tools module will
> > default to use OpenJDK 11 for building packages. Please let me know if
> > you have any concerns.
>
> Hello, I am not very familiar with how Java works in this regard, but since this
> is the default stream etc., wouldn't it be wise to coordinate such change with a
> general OpenJDK 11 default Fedora system wide change?

It probably would, but I'm not aware of any existing change proposal
to switch default OpenJDK versions in Fedora.
> E.g. would the dependent OpenJDK 8 packages still build in stable releases if
> this change is done globally and for example if Ursa Major/Prime/... is activated?

Changing underlying OpenJDK version of maven:3.6 module doesn't change
anything with regards to building other packages. Right now nothing
build-depends on maven:3.6 module. And if Ursa-Major were enabled in
Fedora, most of ursine Java packages would become FTBFS anyway as
maven modules are not capable of building packages with. See below for
more details.

Since always Maven in Fedora was available in 2 flavors, each having
different purposes. "maven" module provides Maven application for end
users. This is pure upstream Maven that doesn't "know" how to access
libraries packaged as RPMs and included in Fedora. Therefore it is
mostly useless for building packages with and I am not aware of any
package in Fedora being built with this pure Maven. For purposes of
building packages "javapackages-tools" module is available - it
provides XMvn - Maven with extensions that enable it to be used for
building packages. It also provides RPM macros and other necessary
tools which are not available in "maven".

--
Mikolaj Izdebski

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Fabio Valentini]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:30 PM Mikolaj Izdebski  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:47 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> > On 25. 10. 19 19:30, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Currently default Java runtime in Fedora is OpenJDK 8. This is not the
> > > latest OpenJDK packaged, but still remains system-default version.
> > > Because of that Apache Maven and Apache Ant in Fedora are built using
> > > OpenJDK 8 and run on OpenJDK 8.
> > >
> > > I am planning to switch Maven 3.6 and Ant 1.10 modules to build with
> > > and run on OpenJDK 11, which is the latest LTS release of OpenJDK.
> > > This also means that future streams of javapackages-tools module will
> > > default to use OpenJDK 11 for building packages. Please let me know if
> > > you have any concerns.
> >
> > Hello, I am not very familiar with how Java works in this regard, but since this
> > is the default stream etc., wouldn't it be wise to coordinate such change with a
> > general OpenJDK 11 default Fedora system wide change?
>
> It probably would, but I'm not aware of any existing change proposal
> to switch default OpenJDK versions in Fedora.

Probably because the Java SIG is basically non-existent right now? Just a guess.

Is there even anybody left who is qualified to submit and go through
with a "switch to OpenJDK 11" Change in fedora?

I really don't want to have to do that myself ...
> > E.g. would the dependent OpenJDK 8 packages still build in stable releases if
> > this change is done globally and for example if Ursa Major/Prime/... is activated?
>
> Changing underlying OpenJDK version of maven:3.6 module doesn't change
> anything with regards to building other packages. Right now nothing
> build-depends on maven:3.6 module. And if Ursa-Major were enabled in
> Fedora, most of ursine Java packages would become FTBFS anyway as
> maven modules are not capable of building packages with. See below for
> more details.

Uhh ... wait, what? That's not good. Is there anything we can do to
prevent this clusterf*ck?

Fabio
> Since always Maven in Fedora was available in 2 flavors, each having
> different purposes. "maven" module provides Maven application for end
> users. This is pure upstream Maven that doesn't "know" how to access
> libraries packaged as RPMs and included in Fedora. Therefore it is
> mostly useless for building packages with and I am not aware of any
> package in Fedora being built with this pure Maven. For purposes of
> building packages "javapackages-tools" module is available - it
> provides XMvn - Maven with extensions that enable it to be used for
> building packages. It also provides RPM macros and other necessary
> tools which are not available in "maven".
>
> --
> Mikolaj Izdebski
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Mikolaj Izdebski]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:27 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
> > > E.g. would the dependent OpenJDK 8 packages still build in stable releases if
> > > this change is done globally and for example if Ursa Major/Prime/... is activated?
> >
> > Changing underlying OpenJDK version of maven:3.6 module doesn't change
> > anything with regards to building other packages. Right now nothing
> > build-depends on maven:3.6 module. And if Ursa-Major were enabled in
> > Fedora, most of ursine Java packages would become FTBFS anyway as
> > maven modules are not capable of building packages with. See below for
> > more details.
>
> Uhh ... wait, what? That's not good. Is there anything we can do to
> prevent this clusterf*ck?

I'm planning to make Maven modules parallel-installable with ursine
packages - maven-3.6 module would not have any conflicts with any
ursine packages. The required packaging work is already done,
parallel-installable PoC of Maven 3.6 is available from MBI repos [1].
Currently I'm waiting for one MBS/Koji [2] issue to be resolved before
building the module in Fedora infrastructure. The issue is already
fixed in staging Koji and I hope that production will be fixed soon
too.

Once parallel-installability is implemented, existence of Maven
modules will not affect building any packages. Ursine Java packages
will be built with ursine Maven, while modular Java packages will be
built with javapackages-tools module, maintained by me.

[1] https://koji.kjnet.xyz/kojifiles/repos/m36/latest/x86_64/
[2] https://pagure.io/fm-orchestrator/issue/1321

--
Mikolaj Izdebski

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Fabio Valentini]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 13:08 Mikolaj Izdebski  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:27 PM Fabio Valentini 
> wrote:
> > > > E.g. would the dependent OpenJDK 8 packages still build in stable
>
> releases if
> > > > this change is done globally and for example if Ursa Major/Prime/...
>
> is activated?
> > > Changing underlying OpenJDK version of maven:3.6 module doesn't change
> > > anything with regards to building other packages. Right now nothing
> > > build-depends on maven:3.6 module. And if Ursa-Major were enabled in
> > > Fedora, most of ursine Java packages would become FTBFS anyway as
> > > maven modules are not capable of building packages with. See below for
> > > more details.
> >
> > Uhh ... wait, what? That's not good. Is there anything we can do to
> > prevent this clusterf*ck?
>
> I'm planning to make Maven modules parallel-installable with ursine
> packages - maven-3.6 module would not have any conflicts with any
> ursine packages. The required packaging work is already done,
> parallel-installable PoC of Maven 3.6 is available from MBI repos [1].
> Currently I'm waiting for one MBS/Koji [2] issue to be resolved before
> building the module in Fedora infrastructure. The issue is already
> fixed in staging Koji and I hope that production will be fixed soon
> too.
>
> Once parallel-installability is implemented, existence of Maven
> modules will not affect building any packages. Ursine Java packages
> will be built with ursine Maven, while modular Java packages will be
> built with javapackages-tools module, maintained by me.

Oh, great. That's good news. Thank you for working on this!

Fabio
> [1] https://koji.kjnet.xyz/kojifiles/repos/m36/latest/x86_64/
> [2] https://pagure.io/fm-orchestrator/issue/1321
>
> --
> Mikolaj Izdebski
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Kevin Kofler]

Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> I'm planning to make Maven modules parallel-installable with ursine
> packages - maven-3.6 module would not have any conflicts with any
> ursine packages. The required packaging work is already done,
> parallel-installable PoC of Maven 3.6 is available from MBI repos [1].
> Currently I'm waiting for one MBS/Koji [2] issue to be resolved before
> building the module in Fedora infrastructure. The issue is already
> fixed in staging Koji and I hope that production will be fixed soon
> too.
>
> Once parallel-installability is implemented, existence of Maven
> modules will not affect building any packages. Ursine Java packages
> will be built with ursine Maven, while modular Java packages will be
> built with javapackages-tools module, maintained by me.

That sounds good. Now the only question that you have not answered (and 
sorry if the answer is obvious) is: What are the advantages of the version 
packaged as a module? Or in other words: Under which use cases would one 
want to use that version rather than the XMvn version packaged in the ursine 
packages and in the javapackages-tools module?

Kevin Kofler

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Jiri Vanek]

any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least for some more time...

On 10/25/19 8:47 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 25. 10. 19 19:30, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Currently default Java runtime in Fedora is OpenJDK 8. This is not the
> > latest OpenJDK packaged, but still remains system-default version.
> > Because of that Apache Maven and Apache Ant in Fedora are built using
> > OpenJDK 8 and run on OpenJDK 8.
> >
> > I am planning to switch Maven 3.6 and Ant 1.10 modules to build with
> > and run on OpenJDK 11, which is the latest LTS release of OpenJDK.
> > This also means that future streams of javapackages-tools module will
> > default to use OpenJDK 11 for building packages. Please let me know if
> > you have any concerns.
>
> Hello, I am not very familiar with how Java works in this regard, but since this is the default
> stream etc., wouldn't it be wise to coordinate such change with a general OpenJDK 11 default Fedora
> system wide change?
>
> E.g. would the dependent OpenJDK 8 packages still build in stable releases if this change is done
> globally and for example if Ursa Major/Prime/... is activated?

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 03:53:28PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least for some more time...

Any reasons?  Defaulting to ancient software conflicts with our “First” foundation.

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Gerald Henriksen]

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 15:59:27 +0200, you wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 03:53:28PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least for some more time...
>
> Any reasons?  Defaulting to ancient software conflicts with our “First” foundation.

Simple reason - while Oracle decided to move Java to a faster, time
based release cycle the Java community essentially shrugged the
proverbial shoulders and ignored Oracle.

Much of the Java ecosystem is still only supported on Java 8, and if
you go to adoptopenjdk.net the default choice remains Java 8.

Hadoop, Tomcat, etc. all still are only supported by their communities
on Java 8.

So while it might be noble for Fedora to try and force the issue, the
likely result is that users needing Java will simply use a different
distribution while Fedora will get a bad repuation in the Java
community.

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Fabio Valentini]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 19:07 Gerald Henriksen  wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 15:59:27 +0200, you wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 03:53:28PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > > any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least
>
> for some more time...
> > Any reasons?  Defaulting to ancient software conflicts with our “First”
>
> foundation.
>
> Simple reason - while Oracle decided to move Java to a faster, time
> based release cycle the Java community essentially shrugged the
> proverbial shoulders and ignored Oracle.
>
> Much of the Java ecosystem is still only supported on Java 8, and if
> you go to adoptopenjdk.net the default choice remains Java 8.
>
> Hadoop, Tomcat, etc. all still are only supported by their communities
> on Java 8.
>
> So while it might be noble for Fedora to try and force the issue, the
> likely result is that users needing Java will simply use a different
> distribution while Fedora will get a bad repuation in the Java
> community.

You are aware that OpenJDK 11 is the default even on Debian stable now,
right? Other than RHEL, most mainstream distros ship 11 as default now,
AFAIK. So fedora really is the odd one out here

_______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 1:07 PM Gerald Henriksen  wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 15:59:27 +0200, you wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 03:53:28PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > > any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least for some more time...
> >
> > Any reasons?  Defaulting to ancient software conflicts with our “First” foundation.
>
> Simple reason - while Oracle decided to move Java to a faster, time
> based release cycle the Java community essentially shrugged the
> proverbial shoulders and ignored Oracle.
>
> Much of the Java ecosystem is still only supported on Java 8, and if
> you go to adoptopenjdk.net the default choice remains Java 8.

Kind of like perl, gcc, kernels, and python releases. Software updates
are an inevitable part of software development. Then some excited
people go "hey, I know, let's support multiple versions of critical
software with a web of technical requirements and invent modules".
Hilarity ensue, and many painful old lessons are being rehashed in
*that* thread. But let's keep this one away from the "modularity"
adventures.

I'm afraid that Oracle inherited a lot of Sun's practices on software
versioning when they bought Java. The version naming scheme, numbering
scheme, and the release schedule, are inconsistent, unpredictable, and
cannot be relied on from Oracle's announcements,  Ergo, right now,
Oracle is deprecating Java 8, and encouraging the current LTS, Java
11. Make no prodictions for the schedule or the next LTS release, this
is *right now*.
> Hadoop, Tomcat, etc. all still are only supported by their communities
> on Java 8.
>
> So while it might be noble for Fedora to try and force the issue, the
> likely result is that users needing Java will simply use a different
> distribution while Fedora will get a bad repuation in the Java
> community.

This is unnecessary. The current consistent layout of parallel
installed versions of Java releases in /usr/lib/jvm, with consistent
release numbering, allows a predictable use of JAVA_HOME and of binary
paths to permit the use of multiple Java releases on the same host.
It's been working well this way for years.

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 02:23:33PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > > Any reasons?  Defaulting to ancient software conflicts with our “First” foundation.
> >
> > Simple reason - while Oracle decided to move Java to a faster, time
> > based release cycle the Java community essentially shrugged the
> > proverbial shoulders and ignored Oracle.
> >
> > Much of the Java ecosystem is still only supported on Java 8, and if
> > you go to adoptopenjdk.net the default choice remains Java 8.
> I'm afraid that Oracle inherited a lot of Sun's practices on software
> versioning when they bought Java. The version naming scheme, numbering
> scheme, and the release schedule, are inconsistent, unpredictable, and
> cannot be relied on from Oracle's announcements,  Ergo, right now,
> Oracle is deprecating Java 8, and encouraging the current LTS, Java
> 11. Make no prodictions for the schedule or the next LTS release, this
> is *right now*.

According to the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history
Java 11 is LTS, and the next LTS will be Java 17 in 2021. There are also
planned releases in between, with dates given.
  By the way, isn't Redhat main driving force behind Java 11 at the moment? What to make from
  https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/leadership-openjdk-8-and-open... ?

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 3:41 PM Tomasz Torcz  wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 02:23:33PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > > > Any reasons?  Defaulting to ancient software conflicts with our “First” foundation.
> > >
> > > Simple reason - while Oracle decided to move Java to a faster, time
> > > based release cycle the Java community essentially shrugged the
> > > proverbial shoulders and ignored Oracle.
> > >
> > > Much of the Java ecosystem is still only supported on Java 8, and if
> > > you go to adoptopenjdk.net the default choice remains Java 8.
> > I'm afraid that Oracle inherited a lot of Sun's practices on software
> > versioning when they bought Java. The version naming scheme, numbering
> > scheme, and the release schedule, are inconsistent, unpredictable, and
> > cannot be relied on from Oracle's announcements,  Ergo, right now,
> > Oracle is deprecating Java 8, and encouraging the current LTS, Java
> > 11. Make no prodictions for the schedule or the next LTS release, this
> > is *right now*.
>
> According to the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history
> Java 11 is LTS, and the next LTS will be Java 17 in 2021. There are also
> planned releases in between, with dates given.
>   By the way, isn't Redhat main driving force behind Java 11 at the moment? What to make from
>   https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/leadership-openjdk-8-and-open... ?

That press release reflects the uncertainties. It says Red Hat "is
stewarding both OpenJDK 8 and OpenJDK 11, which will converge with the
Oracle JDK". A steward, in legal terms, is not the owner. They are
typically an employee entrusted with responsibility, but that trust
and authority can be withdrawn. And which way will the convergence go?
Will OpenJDK become the reference release, which might make sense? And
what about IBM Java, now that IBM bought Red Hat?

Announcements like that are precisely why I would not trust any major
release schedule for Java for any company right now. Since Java 11 is
the latest long-t4erm release right now, I'd switch to it by default
to get architectural features and bug fixes.

Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Fabio Valentini]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 15:54 Jiri Vanek  wrote:
> any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least
> for some more time...

Would you care to elaborate why?

Fabio
> On 10/25/19 8:47 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 25. 10. 19 19:30, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Currently default Java runtime in Fedora is OpenJDK 8. This is not the
> > > latest OpenJDK packaged, but still remains system-default version.
> > > Because of that Apache Maven and Apache Ant in Fedora are built using
> > > OpenJDK 8 and run on OpenJDK 8.
> > >
> > > I am planning to switch Maven 3.6 and Ant 1.10 modules to build with
> > > and run on OpenJDK 11, which is the latest LTS release of OpenJDK.
> > > This also means that future streams of javapackages-tools module will
> > > default to use OpenJDK 11 for building packages. Please let me know if
> > > you have any concerns.
> >
> > Hello, I am not very familiar with how Java works in this regard, but
>
> since this is the default
> > stream etc., wouldn't it be wise to coordinate such change with a
>
> general OpenJDK 11 default Fedora
> > system wide change?
> >
> > E.g. would the dependent OpenJDK 8 packages still build in stable
>
> releases if this change is done
> > globally and for example if Ursa Major/Prime/... is activated?
>
> --
> Jiri Vanek
> Senior QE engineer, OpenJDK QE lead, Mgr.
> Red Hat Czech
> [e-mail]    M: [phone]
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[fedora-java] Re: Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Neal Gompa]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM Jiri Vanek  wrote:
> any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least for some more time...

If anything, we're late to the party of moving to JDK 11 by default.
Java 8 has been EOL for a while now.

[fedora-java] Re: Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Jiri Vanek]

On 10/26/19 4:33 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM Jiri Vanek  wrote:
> > any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least for some more time...
>
> If anything, we're late to the party of moving to JDK 11 by default.
> Java 8 has been EOL for a while now.

Oh this is heavily incorrect. JDK8 is very much alive, and fully supported by upstream. Will be
getting all security patches and also many enhancements for several another years.
>

[fedora-java] Re: Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

[Gerald Henriksen]

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 10:33:59 -0400, you wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM Jiri Vanek  wrote:
> > any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least for some more time...
>
> If anything, we're late to the party of moving to JDK 11 by default.
> Java 8 has been EOL for a while now.

Given that Java 8 is the default in the new RHEL 8 I suspect it will
be getting support for quite a while yet.