On 02/26/2015 04:20 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
On 02/24/2015 05:04 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in
Fedora =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
Change owner(s): Jiri Vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx>
Currently Fedora supports one main Java runtime and Java Development Kit (JDK)
and from time to time one future JDK as a tech preview. This change should be
set of rules, which will enable community to maintain legacy JDKs. Please
note, people are bugging main JDK maintainers pretty often with this, and to
allow them to maintain legacy JDKs is a step in right direction.
* This Change is announced after the Change Submission Deadline as an
exception to the process. May not be approved for proposed Fedora release. *
== Detailed Description ==
This is no real work proposal. The result of this proposal is set of rules,
which will allow community maintainers to pack any legacy jdk and will be
ensuring that this JDKs will not conflict by any other JDK and will smoothly
integrate to system. The results are summarized here, and pledged for
discussion until final resolution is done.
I think for this to work, real work should be done by all Java packagers. There is no advantages of
being able to install any community maintained legacy JDK if I can't use already packaged code. An
example PostgreSQL JDBC driver is currently built with Java 8 bytecode level, it can't be used with
any previous Java release. This happen because upstream developers frequently forget to add the
--target javac command line argument for the minimum supported Java release they support (and work
with upstream to add it). So a lot of packages need to be patched because they will target the built
time Java bytecode level.
The legacy jdk have not unvoulenteerly run this regular fedora-java stack code - never. Thats what
those rules should achieve.
The usage should be for third party development/usage only.
J.
=== Proposed rules ===
0. '''Main JDK maintainers are not never ever responsible for any legacy jdk.
This must remain clear'''
==== 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
1. so from killed java-1.7.0-openjdk will become new package java-1.7.0-
openjdk-legacy
2. next main jdk do Obsolete previous one as usually
2. new package '''must''' not do any virtual provides (aka java,java-devel)...
(protection against random pull by as dependence)
1. it provides only itself by name
3 its priority '''must''' be kept on less digits (right now it would be 5)
then main jdk (protection against winning in alternatives after update)
1. the automated check as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189084
are '''mandatory'''
4. at least one of the main-jdk's members '''must''' be set as comaintainer
(to watch the commits and save the world if necessary)
5. new package '''should''' to follow both original jdk (ideally not change
at all (except source updates and necessary)) and current main jdk as close as
possibly
1. here it requires some common sense and a lot of testing if integration
with system is as expected
6. as it is generally not new package, the review process '''should''' be only
formal - to know maintainer and to create cvs repo
1. this is quite important, otherwise the new maintainer can become really
frustrated, and we are forcing the "dead" package over"orpahned" so the full
review (especially in alignment with rule 5) really should not be forced.
2. on the contrary, rules agreed here '''must''' be checked. (even the
number 5)
7. all depending packages '''must''' keep requiring java-headless or java (and
BuildRequires java-devel). Requirements on any exact jdk - or even worse on
any exact legacy jdk are forbidden and needs FESCO exception.
This option is forcing maintainers to fight with the name x current setup of
alternatives. However, the work should be minimal. But it makes the update
path pretty clear and it keeps users well protected against legacy jdk.
==== option two - orphaning legacy jdks and ensure update path ====
1. main JDK is only orphaned when new main JDK landed
1. it do '''not''' Obsolate previous jdk
2. other rules (2-7) are same
This is making life of legacy JDK maintainers a bit simpler. But I don't know,
how to ensure proper "obsolete" implementation in this case.
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: are responsible for initial setup of those guidelines.
The FESCO, the owners and pssible legacy JDKs maintainers have to agree on
those rules. New legacy JDK can be then added anytime in Fedora lifecycle.
* Other developers: no developers
* Release engineering: in ideal case, no release engineer needed
* Policies and guidelines: The proposal may split to proposal and "Legacy JDKs
in Fedora guidelines" pages
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
