F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 20/11/13 18:53, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 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.
>
> -Toshio
>
>
>
I must agree with Aleksandar, this discussion is going nowhere. There 
weren't mentioned any valid arguments, why to do Wide Change differently 
than proposed by the Change owner.

We were speaking about giving more power to SIGs related to discussion 
about Fedora.next. This can be a good start. Stano and Aleksandar are 
working on Java maintenance a lot, Java SIG members are speaking 
together, so I have a confidence in their actions.

Marcela