[fedora-java] Removing java provides from java-1.5.0-gcj

Deepak Bhole dbhole at redhat.com
Wed Sep 5 18:04:10 UTC 2012


* Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky at redhat.com> [2012-09-05 12:28]:
> Quoting Deepak Bhole (2012-09-05 18:14:38)
> > * Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky at redhat.com> [2012-08-29 05:21]:
> > > We've encountered some minor issues with a few package which were kind
> > > of hard to track down. They were partially caused by a bug in yum which
> > > causes both gcj and openjdk being pulled in when only one of them should
> > > be. The other part was small and hard to spot packaging issues which
> > > caused gcj getting accidentaly pulled into BR instead openjdk
> > > 
> > > Now there are legitimate reasons to require gcj directly, but I'd like
> > > to propose removing "Provides: java = %{javaver}" (and -devel
> > > counterpart). I think leaving rest of the provides should not be an
> > > issue.
> > > 
> > > This way we'll be able to remove obscure need for "Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0"
> > > 
> > > I am CCing Deepak as primary maintainer. Does anyone have strong
> > > objections for said removal? 
> > >
> > 
> > The biggest problem would be for Java packages that need to build on non
> > primary architectures. GCJ builds on every architecture we have, but
> > that is not the case for OpenJDK (yet). If we remove the provides, any
> > packages that may have been using GCJ will no longer be able to build.
> 
> Yes I agree that would be the biggest issue and it's a small one at
> that, because we'd just remove provides and packages would still be able
> to have "BuildRequires: java-1.5.0-gcj" if need be (until we solve the
> build issue).
> 
> I believe due to this, the risk is minimal
> 
> > Of course GCJ is only Java 1.5 so I don't think it helps too many
> > applications. If the architectural concerns are okay to ignore, then I
> > too am fine with removing the provides. We can always add it back at a
> > later time if need be.
> 
> I have similar opion on the number of applications affected by this
> (i.e. close to zero). Most of our java packages are building with
> openjdk anyway because of ant and maven both pulling it in
>

Okay, so shall I make the change to the rpm then? Just to clarify, we
just want to remove provides for 'java = 1.5.0' and 'java-devel = 1.5.0'
right?

Cheers,
Deepak
 
> -- 
> Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky at redhat.com>
> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
> 
> PGP: 7B087241
> Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com


More information about the java-devel mailing list