* Christopher <ctubbsii-fedora@xxxxxxxxxx> [2014-10-31 14:02]: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Deepak Bhole <dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Christopher <ctubbsii-fedora@xxxxxxxxxx> [2014-10-31 11:37]: > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Mat Booth <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 31 October 2014 08:18, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > > Fedora 20 used to have 3 different Java versions (5, > 7, 8). > > > > > > ok, why no Java 6 ? > > > > > > Besides many technical reason the biggest one is > non-technical in > > my eyes - no one volunteered to do it. You know it's always a > > matter of "who will do the work?". I'm pretty sure that if > someone > > jumps in and say "Hey, I'll maintain Java 6, fix problems/ > adopt > > Java 6 to changes in the OS if neeeded, help strengthen the > > switching between JREs, go through the Java projects(shipped > in > > Fedora) and help them properly set their targets in build > scripts > > so builds properly work on Java 6 and etc" there will be no > > objection to having Java 6. :) > > > > > > Fair enough. > > > > > > OpenJDK 7 > > was removed from F21 because its support will end > before > > F21 EOL and > > we > > don't want to ship software not supported by > upstream. > > > > > > So for users most stable thing is to use Oracle JDK > builds > > instead which > > are and will stay available ? > > > > > > Users can still try to use it but it's something that they > have to > > do on their own - download, extract, set PATH, etc. Just like > on > > every platform with Oracle JVM. > > > > > > Yeah, this is similar experience for developers on all other > platforms > > so its expected/assumed. > > > > > > No separate repo with "binaries that is currently > supported but > > will not > > stay supported for all of fedora 21 lifetime" ? > > > > > > 1. Fedora can not legally redistribute Oracle JDK. > > > > > > I know - hence why I would think having a openjdk 7 build would > make > > sense. > > > > > > 2. Fedora can not distribute something that Fedora developers > can > > not support if there is a problem in it (as it is with Oracle > JDK). > > > > > > so *any* package that is known to be marked as EOL sometime in > the > > future before the upcoming Fedora EOL's gets removed from that > future > > Fedora release ? Even that Java 7 is still the most used and > targeted > > Java version ? > > > > > > > > Maybe I misunderstand the use-case, but your projects can still > target Java > > 7 even if Eclipse is running on Java 8. > > > > > > > > That's not entirely true. This only works if a true JDK7 exists on the > system. > > While newer JDKs are able to target older runtimes, there are cases where > one > > can introduce source-incompatible changes that work in a newer JDK, but > not in > > an older JDK. This matters for collaborating on projects where some team > > members are not using the newer JDK to target the older runtime. For > instance, > > this happened with JDK7/JDK6 on my team... JDK7 allows certain use of > generics > > syntax that properly compiles to JDK6 target, and validates in Eclipse as > JDK6 > > source-compatible, but the actual JDK6 compiler treats as an error. I had > to > > abandon my use of Fedora 20 as a development environment for our project, > and > > revert to CentOS6 in order to guarantee I wasn't introducing source that > was > > incompatible with JDK6. Not making older JDKs (even stale ones) available > is > > likely to discourage Java developers from using Fedora as a development > > platform. > > > > This is a bug -- did you file it with us? If so, what was the > conclusion? If -target 1.6 was specified, it should have been able to > run it on 6 without issues and any problems encountered are certainly > bugs. > > > > There is no issue with -target 1.6; the issue was with strict source > compatibility with 1.6. I can't recall the specifics (it had something to do > with generic type checking, because 1.7's javac can make better inferences), > but that's outside the scope of this issue. The main point, as it relates here, > is that there may not be strict compatibility between javac provided by > different JDKs, even if javac makes a best effort attempt to parse older > source. A more obvious problem is the lack of bootstrap classpaths for older > -source/-target, which is known to be likely to create compiled code that is > not capable of running in an older JVM (this doesn't matter if you're > developing for the latest Fedora, but it matters if you're using the latest > Fedora to develop for other platforms, like RHEL or Android). > Ah, yeah not much we can do (with current setup) where the older rt.jar is needed on bootstrap path :/ Deepak > > Deepak > > > Personally, unlike the original poster, I don't care which JVM Eclipse is > > running on, itself (OpenJDK 8, or whatever is latest, works for me). But, > I do > > care about which JDKs are available on the system that Eclipse can launch > to > > build projects, because that affects whether I can use Fedora as my > development > > platform on team projects where some team members are using older JDKs > (which > > should be fine, until the project bumps its minimum JVM dependency). > > > > > -- > > java-devel mailing list > > java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel > > > -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
