----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jiri Vanek" <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:02:38 PM > Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora > > On 02/24/2015 01:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 13:34, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > >> On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:43 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > >> [...] > >>>> ==== option one - introducing new packages - preferred ==== > >>>> 1. main jdk is proclaimed as dead as it was until now. The new jdk is > >>>> derived > >>>> as new package prviousName-legacy > >>> > >>> Fedora already supports multiple JDKs installable in parallel. This was > >>> inherited from JPackage project. This breaks long-established rule of > >>> naming JDK packages as "java-x.y.z-vendor" used across different > >>> distributions (JPackage, Fedora, RHEL, SUSE, ...) > >> [...] > >> > >> The idea behind this "-legacy" suffix was to ensure a reasonable upgrade > >> path for people *only* using default java-x.y.z-openjdk package. > >> > >> Consider the following scenario (all hypothetical, not saying that any > >> Fedora releases and JDK releases align in this way): > >> > >> F22 has default JDK of java-1.8.0-openjdk. Then, F23 will get > >> java-1.9.0-openjdk as default and F24 java-1.10.0-openjdk as default. > >> The upgrade from F22 => F23 will install java-1.9.0-openjdk and remove > >> java-1.8.0-openjdk. Similarly, the upgrade from F23 to F24 will install > >> java-1.10.0-openjdk and remove java-1.9.0-openjdk. This is to ensure > >> that no old JDKs stick around on the majority of Fedora systems. > >> > >> If the name was kept there does not seem to be a good way to: > >> 1.) Ensure dist upgrades update JDK packages > >> 2.) Ensure dist upgrades remove old JDK package (which may no longer > >> get security updates). > >> > >> Do you see a way to achieve this without a name change of the package? > > > > Wait. Don't you realize that java-1.8.0-openjdk and java-1.9.0-openjdk > > are different packages? > > yes they are, but the secon *is* update of first. > > > > If there are any packages requiring java-1.8.0-openjdk they can keep > > using it as long as it has a maintainer. java-1.9.0-openjdk will be > > a completely new package. > > Yes they can. But until now it was really bad idea. > > IcedTea-Web was also wrong example - it is requiring *main* jdk. Nothing > else. > > And as it is not strightforward to compile ITW agains different jdks, then > the strict rule have sense. > > > > I agree with Mikołaj that there's no need for what you're proposing. > > > > There is. Not using those rules will completly break fedaora+java as we know > it now. > > I would much rather live without any legacy jdk, and if so then without any > rules. But not setting > them will bring chaos for majority of users. I have a question: Is there anybody that stepped in to maintain the legacy jdk? If there is nobody to maintain it trying to come up with this guidelines now would be pointless. In short I think that such guidelines would better be created *only* when there are interested parties, jointly with them and the process is played a bit by some copr repo or similar. Purely theoretical work is not needed. Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team > > > J. > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
