F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora

[Jiri Vanek]

On 02/24/2015 01:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 13:34, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:43 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> ==== option one - introducing new packages - preferred ====
>>>> 1. main jdk is proclaimed as dead as it was until now.  The new jdk is derived
>>>> as new package prviousName-legacy
>>>
>>> Fedora already supports multiple JDKs installable in parallel. This was
>>> inherited from JPackage project. This breaks long-established rule of
>>> naming JDK packages as "java-x.y.z-vendor" used across different
>>> distributions (JPackage, Fedora, RHEL, SUSE, ...)
>> [...]
>>
>> The idea behind this "-legacy" suffix was to ensure a reasonable upgrade
>> path for people *only* using default java-x.y.z-openjdk package.
>>
>> Consider the following scenario (all hypothetical, not saying that any
>> Fedora releases and JDK releases align in this way):
>>
>> F22 has default JDK of java-1.8.0-openjdk. Then, F23 will get
>> java-1.9.0-openjdk as default and F24 java-1.10.0-openjdk as default.
>> The upgrade from F22 => F23 will install java-1.9.0-openjdk and remove
>> java-1.8.0-openjdk. Similarly, the upgrade from F23 to F24 will install
>> java-1.10.0-openjdk and remove java-1.9.0-openjdk. This is to ensure
>> that no old JDKs stick around on the majority of Fedora systems.
>>
>> If the name was kept there does not seem to be a good way to:
>> 1.) Ensure dist upgrades update JDK packages
>> 2.) Ensure dist upgrades remove old JDK package (which may no longer
>>      get security updates).
>>
>> Do you see a way to achieve this without a name change of the package?
>
> Wait. Don't you realize that java-1.8.0-openjdk and java-1.9.0-openjdk
> are different packages?

yes they are, but the secon *is* update of first.
>
> If there are any packages requiring java-1.8.0-openjdk they can keep
> using it as long as it has a maintainer. java-1.9.0-openjdk will be
> a completely new package.

Yes they can. But until now it was really bad idea.

IcedTea-Web was also wrong example - it is requiring *main* jdk. Nothing else.

And as it is not strightforward to compile ITW agains different jdks, then the strict rule have sense.
>
> I agree with Mikołaj that there's no need for what you're proposing.
>

There is.  Not using those rules will completly break fedaora+java as we know it now.

I would much rather live without any legacy jdk, and if so then without any rules. But not setting 
them will bring chaos for majority of users.


J.