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

Jiri Vanek jvanek at redhat.com
Thu Feb 26 07:42:08 UTC 2015


On 02/24/2015 04:36 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk at redhat.com> [2015-02-24 10:12]:
>> On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>> * Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk at redhat.com> [2015-02-24 09:58]:
>>>> On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>>>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at greysector.net> [2015-02-24 09:29]:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>>>>>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at greysector.net> [2015-02-24 09:04]:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> There were several attempts in past like "can you please support jdk
>>>>>>>>> 7,6...in newer fedoras" and we always told no. When come speech about "do it
>>>>>>>>> on your own" suddenly many questions marks raised up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The last open bug is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190137
>>>>>>>>> the guy is willing to maintain it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fine, so let him do it and drop the Obsoletes: tag in java-1.8.0-openjdk
>>>>>>>> and its successors. You shouldn't arbitrarily block people from
>>>>>>>> re-introducing an older branch of any package back into Fedora in the
>>>>>>>> first place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have no intention of blocking it. The reason for proposing these
>>>>>>> restrictions is that the Fedora Java stack will not work with older
>>>>>>> JDKs, therefore we need to make sure that it goes not get installed on
>>>>>>> the system unless explicitly requested by someone who knows what they
>>>>>>> are doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you do that by adding/updating (Build)Requires: in the packages
>>>>>> which won't work otherwise, not by adding Obsoletes:.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That would generally work for most packages, but there is a new JDK
>>>>> released every 2 years. This means that we would have to change the BR
>>>>> and Requires for the entire Java stack (100s and 100s of packages) every
>>>>> 2 years, which is non-trivial.
>>>>
>>>> First, we have versioned auto-requires generated during package build.
>>>> Explicit requires on java aren't usually needed. If package requires
>>>> "java > 1:1.7" then it is correct - the package can be assumed to work
>>>> with older JDK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While that is true in terms of source compatibility, it will work only
>>> if it is compiled with the older JDK.
>>>
>>>> Secondly, it is fairly easy to add requires on "java-devel >= 1:1.8" to
>>>> packages related to build systems like ant, maven or gradle. This would
>>>> cover most cases of building Java packages using latest JDK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As you stated, it will cover most cases, but not all. More critically,
>>> this does not solve the issue with requirement of 'java' itself.
>>
>> These few remaining cases can be easily handled by provenpackager as
>> mass-change.
>>
>> Also, my proposal of introducing "java" metapackage (see my other post
>> in this thread), which would always require the latest JDK, solves this
>> problem in a different way, without modifying ordinary Java packages at all.
>>

May you be more exact with the metapackage? Before I come up with legacy, I hoped to solve the 
issues via some metapackage. At the end I gave up, because the touch of user was always necessary.

J.
>
> Ah, I had missed that. Yes, the metapackage solution should work to the
> same effect. I don't know if we can just call it 'java' though, unless
> you are proposing that 'java' provision be removed from current openjdk
> packages?
>
> Deepak
>
>> --
>> Mikolaj Izdebski
>> Software Engineer, Red Hat
>> IRC: mizdebsk
>> --
>> 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



More information about the devel mailing list