On 02/27/2015 11:47 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jiri Vanek" <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:43:53 AM
Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora
On 02/26/2015 02:51 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/24/2015 10:34 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.
=== 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
_______________________________________________
Small restart.
Looking to the discussion, although many people claimed "against any
rules" at the end it seems to
me that everybody agree on "some rules" - even if it would be existence of
metapackage or only
removed virtual provides and priority....
From that point of view, do you mind to help me to improve those rules?
Looking to more inputs from https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/503 :
Current state is fight between -legacy suffix and metapackage with
provides.
Except that :
rule 2 is moreover agreed by all.
rule 3 was not discussed by anybody == is ok?
If we want to be sure that this legacy jdk will not interfere with the system JDK let it not provide anything via alternatives. That way people that want it can use it by playing with PATH/JAVA_HOME (just like they do with other JVMs).
I was quite thinking about keeping/removing the alternatives. And at end I came to conclusion that
keeping them (if all other rules are kept and so nobody is doing this unvoulenteerly) will bring
more benefit then removal.
I actually can imagine that somebody will wont to run his third party app via the legacy jdk. In
this case the alternatives are doing it job pretty well - something like custom satck or whatever.
Ohterwise yes - I'm only 51/49 for keeping alternatives as they are.
J.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
rule 4 was considered only once as to strict, except that seems ok. I
don't insists on it. If
nor me nor any of my colleagues will be comaintainer - good. less work for
us.
rule 5 and 7 were discussed only shortly without any clear result.
However
rule 6 depends whether metapackage or -legacy will win. For metapackage
have no real sense.
How I see implementation of this metapackage:
Four[1] java subpackages have virtual provides. *each* of them will to have
its own
java-1.X.0-openjdk-subpackageIfany-provides subacklage.
This subpackage will have all virtual provides of base subpackage and will
require the base subpackage.
As legacy jdks must not have the virtual provides, legacy jdks will not have
this virtual provides
subpackages of subpackages.
That also means, that the virtual provides subpackages can obsolate the X-1
(virtual provides
sbpackage of subpackage) ones and so the issue with removal of old jdk will
be solved.
The fact, that legacy jdk must not even contain this mteasupackages *must* be
documented in guidelines.
So at the end the techical result of both -legacy and metapackage is same -
Yipii!
However - comparing those two approaches (metapckage/legacy) - the legacy
renaming is much simpler.
-legacy:
- no four new packages
- much less and much simpler documentation
- really loud naming if anyone will hit it by accident
- no additional work for people maintinag main jdk
- much less error resistbale at all
metapackges with provides
- four new virtual subapckages
- documentation may be tricky
- legacy x normal main are not recognizeable for person not follwiong the
daily happening
- a lot of work for main jdk maintaiers. It is something I really wonted to
avoid. As was
mentioned in the thread. Mainting main jdk is quite a lot of work.
In any case, the guidelines are needed.
[1]:
jre
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec?h=f21#n277
headless:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec?h=f21#n310
devel
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec?h=f21#n347
javadoc
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec?h=f21#n397
in f22+ this is complicated also by debug packages (doubleing the number of
packages, but this
double is done automatically in loops/via macros)
--
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
