On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote: > On 02/24/2015 04:03 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: >> On 02/24/2015 03:51 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: >>>> 2.) Ensure dist upgrades remove old JDK package (which may no longer >>>> get security updates). >>> >>> Firstly, as I understand upgrade isn't supposed to remove packages by >>> default, unless they are obsoleted or conflict with something. Are you >>> saying that JDKs should be treated exceptionally by package management >>> systems? >> >> I should add that user can easily remove packages which were installed >> as dependencies, but which are no longer needed by running "yum >> autoremove" command. >> > > So by other words - from option "one" and "two" you vote for two, no > renaming, and removing rules 4,5,6,7. Technically I'm against this change, see my first post. > You do not complain about rule 2 and 3.Right? Rule 2 is definitely a good thing. Muliple providers of the same thing don't work in practice, so we should have only one package providing "java" etc. I don't know the exact scheme used for priorites, so I can't comment on rule 3. I trust you to set priorities correctly so that "main JDK" has highest priority. Lecacy and tech-preview JDKs should IMO have lower priority. -- Mikolaj Izdebski Software Engineer, Red Hat IRC: mizdebsk -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
