On 09:33:51 Monday 25 July 2011 Deepak Bhole wrote: > * Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> [2011-07-25 15:54]: > > Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > > Robyn and I have talked about how the feature process could be adapted > > > to allow for more late work to occur however none of that talk has > > > turned into anything solid yet. One point that bears on this is that > > > the Feature Owners must be willing to commit to doing all the work > > > involved in coordination when they submit something late. In other > > > words, if Java 7 update went in well before the feature deadline, the > > > expectation would be that packagers whose packages depended on Java > > > would need to adapt to Java 7. The expectation now that the Feature > > > Freeze has passed is that the people pushing Java 7 into the repos > > > would also need to seek out and fix all the packages that depend on > > > them that are broken. > > > > Would we actually be shipping only 7, or both 6 and 7? > > This hasn't been debated yet, but I am very much in favour of having > only 7 in Fedora 16. The less duplicating packages we have - the better :). I'm all for reducing the number of jvms we ship (assuming that OpenJDK 7 doesn't break many things). Alexander Kurtakov > > If the reason for asking was w.r.t re-builds, it is unlikely that most > applications will need a rebuild -- only those using deprecated APIs > (which would have been deprecated for years now) and private APIs would > be affected. That would likely be a small subset. > > Opinions from others are welcome.. > > Cheers, > Deepak -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
