F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Wed Nov 20 17:53:15 UTC 2013

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> I start to think this conversation goes nowhere. The whole split is
> superficial and most java developers are used to get full jvm if they
> require java.  This would probably change with Java 8 introducing Profiles
> [1]. And any proper packaging should be modeled after this one. Inventing
> even more new names/provided/etc. now would just increase the mess we
> already have.  I remember seeing servlets using awt/ImageIO for image
> processing on tomcat version running on headless server - and it was
> leading just to jvm crash. That was in Java 5 times but illustrates the
> problem. This was easily fixable by adding -Djava.awt.headless=true to
> Tomcat startup scripts, what I want to point with that is that simply
> moving a package require java-headless from full java has to be carefully
> thought on per package base with some changes done to the packages if
> needed to ensure no such bad examples start to pop out. Java means full
> JVM so we would better not confuse this with any java-x11(what about
> wayland coming?) or similar naming at least for now. Also headless(through
> the java.awt.headless option) is known and well recognized option in Java
> community while x11 would mean nothing to many Java developers. This keeps
> us closer to common terms and not deviate needlessly.
And nothing changes the term "java" 's meaning for developers or users...
The several proposals only add the new term, java-x11 for packagers and
even there, they allow for deprecation, they do not break backwards compat.
Third parties can continue to use Requires: java.  Unaudited code in Fedora
will continue to use Requires: java.  Only when someone has spent the time
to check whether a package will work with headless and determined that it
will not will the package change its Require: to java-x11 (or similar) to
record for future maintainers and other interested parties that the package
cannot be used without the full jvm.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20131120/e482f791/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list