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

Pete Travis lists at petetravis.com
Tue Feb 24 15:59:30 UTC 2015

On Feb 24, 2015 8:32 AM, "Mikolaj Izdebski" <mizdebsk at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 02:17 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >> 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
> I fully agree with Alex here.
> I would add that if someone really wants to maintain older JDK in Fedora
> then it should up to *them* to come up with a solution that will work
> and satisfy expectations of JKD maintainers and Java SIG. Maintaining
> package is more than clicking "unorphan" in pkgdb.
> --
> Mikolaj Izdebski
> Software Engineer, Red Hat
> IRC: mizdebsk
> --

If some third party supplies 'java' as the $legacy jdk, and the user
installs a Fedora package built on $current jdk, which provider will win,
and what packages will break?

If the user uses alternatives to set the jdk (that applies here, right?)
any applications that need one version or the other could break?

I understand these are relatively ignorant questions, but if the aim is to
provide a path for someone to maintain older JDKs it seems better to offer
them guidelines and best practices instead of "you'd better be competent
enough to figure it out".  They might not think of all the potential

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150224/7fedc4ff/attachment.html>

More information about the devel mailing list