On 20/11/13 18:53, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I start to think this conversation goes nowhere. The whole split is
superficial and most java developers are used to get full jvm if they
require java. This would probably change with Java 8 introducing Profiles
[1]. And any proper packaging should be modeled after this one. Inventing
even more new names/provided/etc. now would just increase the mess we
already have. I remember seeing servlets using awt/ImageIO for image
processing on tomcat version running on headless server - and it was
leading just to jvm crash. That was in Java 5 times but illustrates the
problem. This was easily fixable by adding -Djava.awt.headless=true to
Tomcat startup scripts, what I want to point with that is that simply
moving a package require java-headless from full java has to be carefully
thought on per package base with some changes done to the packages if
needed to ensure no such bad examples start to pop out. Java means full
JVM so we would better not confuse this with any java-x11(what about
wayland coming?) or similar naming at least for now. Also headless(through
the java.awt.headless option) is known and well recognized option in Java
community while x11 would mean nothing to many Java developers. This keeps
us closer to common terms and not deviate needlessly.
And nothing changes the term "java" 's meaning for developers or users...
The several proposals only add the new term, java-x11 for packagers and
even there, they allow for deprecation, they do not break backwards compat.
Third parties can continue to use Requires: java. Unaudited code in Fedora
will continue to use Requires: java. Only when someone has spent the time
to check whether a package will work with headless and determined that it
will not will the package change its Require: to java-x11 (or similar) to
record for future maintainers and other interested parties that the package
cannot be used without the full jvm.
-Toshio
I must agree with Aleksandar, this discussion is going nowhere. There
weren't mentioned any valid arguments, why to do Wide Change differently
than proposed by the Change owner.
We were speaking about giving more power to SIGs related to discussion
about Fedora.next. This can be a good start. Stano and Aleksandar are
working on Java maintenance a lot, Java SIG members are speaking
together, so I have a confidence in their actions.
Marcela
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
