On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 13:22 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 15:05 -0800, Anthony Green wrote: > > I've been really bad about preparing the FC5 release notes for java. I > > wrote the followup up today, which I think covers the number 1 issue. > > Comments? > > We moved some of the content around to come up with this: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/PackageNotes/Java > Chris Hubick -- got your comments. The content has changed since your > original reply. Can you look back at the page and see which of your > concerns still exist? The last note says: > Jpackage is a Java software repository compatible with Fedora. I think this language could lead to exactly the problem I had with FC4, where users will read this and run out an do a yum update from the JPP repository, not knowing it will mess up their FC Java. > Avoid installing third-party packages that are not compatible with > the JPackage repository. > Do not install RPM packages from vendors such as Sun Microsystems, > IBM, or BEA without first repackaging them using the appropriate > JPackage wrapper or compatibility package. Failure to do so leads > to unpredictable results. I also think this language is a little strong/absolute sounding. I personally would offer more of a "doing so *can* lead to problems with the shipped solutions" stance (if you don't know what you are doing). That is to say, if you do go ahead and take a stock FC5 box and install Sun's RPM and non-jpackage Java software, as long as your path's are right, it *will* probably work. The other thing I notice is the complete lack of another note clause resembling the proposed: "Please note that despite utilizing the JPackage installation guidelines, several of the Java application software packages shipped with Fedora have been slightly modified from those provided by JPackage, in order to work out of the box with the included compiler and runtime environment. Additionally, the Fedora packages also include pre-compiled fast and optimized native binary code alongside the original Java bytecode JAR files. As a result, if you modify your Yum configuration and update to application software packages shipped directly through the JPackage Yum repository, you will end up with an unpredictable mix of bytecode and binary software. So although Fedora allows the use of JPackage for installing alternate Java Runtime Environments, JPackage is not necessarily recommended for the Java application software packages which use that runtime. Users wishing to maintain a supported software platform, by using the Free Java Runtime Environment shipped with Fedora, are advised to only update their systems with Java application software packages provided through the Fedora and Fedora Extras Yum repositories, and not directly through JPackage unless they also plan to switch to one of their alternate/proprietary Java runtimes. The Fedora provided application software packages should continue to work with other Java Runtime Environments which follow JPackage guidelines, but as stated above, there is a good chance unmodified JPackage applications will not work with the default Runtime Environment shipped with Fedora." Do people not think this is a good idea then? Too verbose? I hesitate to edit the wiki myself, as historically I have been just a lowly Fedora user, I don't know what you dev's want, and don't want to step on anyones toes, and lastly as a programmer, my spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar skills need some... ehh... refinement (as if you couldn't tell already :). -- Chris Hubick mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.hubick.com/
