Removing java provides from java-1.5.0-gcj

[Stanislav Ochotnicky]

We've encountered some minor issues with a few package which were kind
of hard to track down. They were partially caused by a bug in yum which
causes both gcj and openjdk being pulled in when only one of them should
be. The other part was small and hard to spot packaging issues which
caused gcj getting accidentaly pulled into BR instead openjdk

Now there are legitimate reasons to require gcj directly, but I'd like
to propose removing "Provides: java = %{javaver}" (and -devel
counterpart). I think leaving rest of the provides should not be an
issue.

This way we'll be able to remove obscure need for "Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0"

I am CCing Deepak as primary maintainer. Does anyone have strong
objections for said removal?

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stanislav Ochotnicky" 
> To: "Fedora Java Development" 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:20:54 PM
> Subject: [fedora-java] Removing java provides from java-1.5.0-gcj
>
> We've encountered some minor issues with a few package which were
> kind
> of hard to track down. They were partially caused by a bug in yum
> which
> causes both gcj and openjdk being pulled in when only one of them
> should
> be. The other part was small and hard to spot packaging issues which
> caused gcj getting accidentaly pulled into BR instead openjdk
>
> Now there are legitimate reasons to require gcj directly, but I'd
> like
> to propose removing "Provides: java = %{javaver}" (and -devel
> counterpart). I think leaving rest of the provides should not be an
> issue.

Well, I still see packages that have Requires: jaxp_parser_impl and etc. so such packages can bring gcj in too. If the Provides:java is removed it makes perfect sense to remove the others too so we can be absolutely sure gcj is not pulled in accidentially.

Regards,
Alex
> This way we'll be able to remove obscure need for "Requires: java >=
> 1:1.6.0"
>
> I am CCing Deepak as primary maintainer. Does anyone have strong
> objections for said removal?
>
> --
> Stanislav Ochotnicky 
> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
>
> PGP: 7B087241
> Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com
> --
> java-devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel

[Stanislav Ochotnicky]

Aaand...forgot to Cc Deepak so doing it now, sorry for the noise

Quoting Stanislav Ochotnicky (2012-08-29 11:20:54)
> We've encountered some minor issues with a few package which were kind
> of hard to track down. They were partially caused by a bug in yum which
> causes both gcj and openjdk being pulled in when only one of them should
> be. The other part was small and hard to spot packaging issues which
> caused gcj getting accidentaly pulled into BR instead openjdk
>
> Now there are legitimate reasons to require gcj directly, but I'd like
> to propose removing "Provides: java = %{javaver}" (and -devel
> counterpart). I think leaving rest of the provides should not be an
> issue.
>
> This way we'll be able to remove obscure need for "Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0"
>
> I am CCing Deepak as primary maintainer. Does anyone have strong
> objections for said removal?
>
> -- 
> Stanislav Ochotnicky 
> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
>
> PGP: 7B087241
> Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com
> --
> java-devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel

[Deepak Bhole]

* Stanislav Ochotnicky  [2012-08-29 05:21]:
> We've encountered some minor issues with a few package which were kind
> of hard to track down. They were partially caused by a bug in yum which
> causes both gcj and openjdk being pulled in when only one of them should
> be. The other part was small and hard to spot packaging issues which
> caused gcj getting accidentaly pulled into BR instead openjdk
>
> Now there are legitimate reasons to require gcj directly, but I'd like
> to propose removing "Provides: java = %{javaver}" (and -devel
> counterpart). I think leaving rest of the provides should not be an
> issue.
>
> This way we'll be able to remove obscure need for "Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0"
>
> I am CCing Deepak as primary maintainer. Does anyone have strong
> objections for said removal?

The biggest problem would be for Java packages that need to build on non
primary architectures. GCJ builds on every architecture we have, but
that is not the case for OpenJDK (yet). If we remove the provides, any
packages that may have been using GCJ will no longer be able to build.

Of course GCJ is only Java 1.5 so I don't think it helps too many
applications. If the architectural concerns are okay to ignore, then I
too am fine with removing the provides. We can always add it back at a
later time if need be.

Cheers,
Deepak
> -- 
> Stanislav Ochotnicky 
> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
>
> PGP: 7B087241
> Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com
> --
> java-devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel

[Stanislav Ochotnicky]

Quoting Deepak Bhole (2012-09-05 18:14:38)
> Stanislav Ochotnicky  [2012-08-29 05:21]:
> > We've encountered some minor issues with a few package which were kind
> > of hard to track down. They were partially caused by a bug in yum which
> > causes both gcj and openjdk being pulled in when only one of them should
> > be. The other part was small and hard to spot packaging issues which
> > caused gcj getting accidentaly pulled into BR instead openjdk
> >
> > Now there are legitimate reasons to require gcj directly, but I'd like
> > to propose removing "Provides: java = %{javaver}" (and -devel
> > counterpart). I think leaving rest of the provides should not be an
> > issue.
> >
> > This way we'll be able to remove obscure need for "Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0"
> >
> > I am CCing Deepak as primary maintainer. Does anyone have strong
> > objections for said removal?
>
> The biggest problem would be for Java packages that need to build on non
> primary architectures. GCJ builds on every architecture we have, but
> that is not the case for OpenJDK (yet). If we remove the provides, any
> packages that may have been using GCJ will no longer be able to build.

Yes I agree that would be the biggest issue and it's a small one at
that, because we'd just remove provides and packages would still be able
to have "BuildRequires: java-1.5.0-gcj" if need be (until we solve the
build issue).

I believe due to this, the risk is minimal
> Of course GCJ is only Java 1.5 so I don't think it helps too many
> applications. If the architectural concerns are okay to ignore, then I
> too am fine with removing the provides. We can always add it back at a
> later time if need be.

I have similar opion on the number of applications affected by this
(i.e. close to zero). Most of our java packages are building with
openjdk anyway because of ant and maven both pulling it in

[Deepak Bhole]

* Stanislav Ochotnicky  [2012-09-05 12:28]:
> Quoting Deepak Bhole (2012-09-05 18:14:38)
> > Stanislav Ochotnicky  [2012-08-29 05:21]:
> > > We've encountered some minor issues with a few package which were kind
> > > of hard to track down. They were partially caused by a bug in yum which
> > > causes both gcj and openjdk being pulled in when only one of them should
> > > be. The other part was small and hard to spot packaging issues which
> > > caused gcj getting accidentaly pulled into BR instead openjdk
> > >
> > > Now there are legitimate reasons to require gcj directly, but I'd like
> > > to propose removing "Provides: java = %{javaver}" (and -devel
> > > counterpart). I think leaving rest of the provides should not be an
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > This way we'll be able to remove obscure need for "Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0"
> > >
> > > I am CCing Deepak as primary maintainer. Does anyone have strong
> > > objections for said removal?
> >
> > The biggest problem would be for Java packages that need to build on non
> > primary architectures. GCJ builds on every architecture we have, but
> > that is not the case for OpenJDK (yet). If we remove the provides, any
> > packages that may have been using GCJ will no longer be able to build.
>
> Yes I agree that would be the biggest issue and it's a small one at
> that, because we'd just remove provides and packages would still be able
> to have "BuildRequires: java-1.5.0-gcj" if need be (until we solve the
> build issue).
>
> I believe due to this, the risk is minimal
> > Of course GCJ is only Java 1.5 so I don't think it helps too many
> > applications. If the architectural concerns are okay to ignore, then I
> > too am fine with removing the provides. We can always add it back at a
> > later time if need be.
>
> I have similar opion on the number of applications affected by this
> (i.e. close to zero). Most of our java packages are building with
> openjdk anyway because of ant and maven both pulling it in

Okay, so shall I make the change to the rpm then? Just to clarify, we
just want to remove provides for 'java = 1.5.0' and 'java-devel = 1.5.0'
right?

Cheers,
Deepak
> -- 
> Stanislav Ochotnicky 
> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
>
> PGP: 7B087241
> Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com