F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora
jvanek at redhat.com
Tue Feb 24 13:02:38 UTC 2015
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.
More information about the devel