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

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jiri Vanek" <jvanek at redhat.com>
> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:02:38 PM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java	platform in Fedora
> 
> 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.

I have a question: Is there anybody that stepped in to maintain the legacy jdk? 
If there is nobody to maintain it trying to come up with this guidelines now would be pointless. 
In short I think that such guidelines would better be created *only* when there are interested parties, jointly with them and the process is played a bit by some copr repo or similar. Purely theoretical work is not needed.  

Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team

> 
> 
> J.
> 
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct