On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 15:30 +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > On 07/13/2018 11:00 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > See this bug for some background: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1600426 > > > > Any Java package gets a "Requires: javapackages-tools" whether they > > want it or not. It's part of the Java Packaging Guidelines[1]. Does > > anybody remember the rationale as to why that exists? If the answer is > > directory ownership for dirs like /usr/lib/jvm/ et.al. I'd consider > > changing the guidelines to auto-requires javapackages-filesystem in > > F29+. > > Typically packages require javapackages-tools during runtime for one or > both of two following major reasons: > > 1. Directory ownership. javapackages-tools requires > javapackages-filesystem, which owns many directories into which Java > packages install their files. > > 2. Java functions library. javapackages-tools contains library of shell > functions at /usr/share/java-utils/java-functions which is imported by > application launcher scripts written in shell. These functions may be > used to help loading system-wide or application-specific configuration, > constructing application classpath, determining proper JVM/JDK to use > with the application, and finally invoking JVM with appropriate flags, > including ABRT agent flags, and finally invoking JVM. > > (There are also other minor, but valid reasons to require > javapckages-tools, such as for configuration files it contains.) > > Changing auto-requires from javapackages-tools to > javapackages-filesystem and rebuilding all packages would break most of > launcher scripts. Explicit requires on javapackages-tools would have to > be added to packages that have launchers in order to fix them, reverting > some of benefits of the change. Question is how many of the Java packages use javapackages-tools for 2). Any ideas how we'd figure this out in some automated way? > Lets look at case of byteman, mentioned in the bug. Switching > auto-requires to javapackages-filesystem would not achieve much, as > byteman ships launcher scripts in /usr/bin/ that require > javapackages-tools to function properly, so explicit requires on > javapackages-tools would probably need to be added. Moreover, byteman > requires objectweb-asm, which also contains launcher script and > therefore would still need to require javapackages-tools for reason nr > 2. above. Not really. byteman does not use what you describe as 2) from javapackages-tools. That's just upstream functionality. Byteman also doesn't require objectweb-asm (at runtime; its BR only), so that's not good of an argument either. It would run fine with just java-openjdk (JDK 10). > For the auto-requries to have desired effect many packages > would need to be split into library and application parts. Like for > example, maven binary package contains only launcher script (plus > manpage and bash completion associated with the script), while maven-lib > contains library code. Perhaps that would be a change for the better? > > Thoughts? > > Implementing this change would require modifying many Java packages to > add explicit requires to spec files. It would not affect users of Java > applications, which would still need to require javapackages-tools. It > would only possibly affect installations with Java libraries, but no > applications, provided that these libraries don't have dependencies on > applications. > > So to me it seems like a lot of effort for not much benefit. But I'm not > opposed to the change, as long as people implementing it will take > responsibility for fixing all packages broken by it. Due to nature of > the change, affecting many packages across the distribution, I think it > should be a system-wide change approved by FESCo. It sounds like a system-wide-change would be good to do for this one way or another. One issue here is that javapackage-tools drags in java- 1.8.0-openjdk-headless. At some point that package will be gone in Fedora. So looking ahead, it would be good to start thinking about this now. I'd be happy to help fix some of those packages. Looks like this proposal would be F20 at the earliest. Thanks, Severin _______________________________________________ java-devel mailing list -- java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to java-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/H27BII4YWICYT6YZWOV4J4EWVPEEIBS7/
