----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jiri Vanek" <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:52:42 AM > Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora > > On 02/24/2015 05:21 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > > On 02/24/2015 04:59 PM, Pete Travis wrote: > >> On Feb 24, 2015 8:32 AM, "Mikolaj Izdebski" <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 02/24/2015 02:17 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > >>>>> 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 > > This pure theoretical work is based on various troubles various > multiple/legacy jdks caused in last > years. So it is preventing the issues we know will rise. > > >> needed. > >>> > >>> I fully agree with Alex here. > >>> > >>> I would add that if someone really wants to maintain older JDK in Fedora > >>> then it should up to *them* to come up with a solution that will work > > Them? ANy packaging/openjdk newbie? Cool. It will break and will breaak a > lot. As long as this happens in COPR repo until it's good to go I don't see a problem. This will also means that at the time it goes into Fedora we do not speak about newbie anymore. Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team > > Those guidelines were written to protect fedora from possible harm. > > >>> and satisfy expectations of JKD maintainers and Java SIG. Maintaining > >>> package is more than clicking "unorphan" in pkgdb. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> -- > >>> > >> > >> If some third party supplies 'java' as the $legacy jdk, and the user > >> installs a Fedora package built on $current jdk, which provider will win, > >> and what packages will break? > > > > Hopefully none. And the guidelines should prevent any unsuitable jdk to "win" > automatically. > > > It's implementation detail of different package management systems > > (yum/dnf etc) and in general it's unspecfied. My experience shows that > > multiple packages providing the same thing are unreliable in practice > > and best avoided. > > > >> If the user uses alternatives to set the jdk (that applies here, right?) > >> any applications that need one version or the other could break? > > > > I don't know how to avoid this issue. But at least it will happen - if happen > at all - after the > manual switch is done. > > > Particular applications can be configured to use different JRE/JDK > > versions (for example you can run Maven with Java 8, but Ant with Java > > 7). Per-user configuration is also possible (user bob runs Maven with > > Java 8, but fred with Java 7). Fedora is quite flexible in this aspect. > > > > Moreover, Fedora can be configured not to use alternatives for Java > > apps, so you can have /usr/bin/java pointing to old JDK while Fedora > > applications are running with default (latest) JDK. > > > >> I understand these are relatively ignorant questions, but if the aim is to > >> provide a path for someone to maintain older JDKs it seems better to offer > >> them guidelines and best practices instead of "you'd better be competent > >> enough to figure it out". They might not think of all the potential > >> conflicts. > > Yes, this sounds right. > > > > If someone wants to maintain old JDK they are free to do so. Moreover, > > they will surely get help from Java SIG with implementing that, provided > > they show enough involvement. But IMO packaging guidelines is not a > What is an better place? > > > place for listing details how compat packages for JDK should look like. > > > > Java SIG is busy enough. Why to add you more work? > > 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
