----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fabio Valentini" <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 10:58:04 AM > Subject: Re: What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular packages? > ~snipping long thread~ > Another issue is that the modular Java packages are now getting built > with OpenJDK 11, while the non-modular default is still OpenJDK 8, and > nobody is left to drive an OpenJDK 8 → 11 transition in fedora > forward. We're basically the only holdout on Java 8 still, with even > debian stable (!) defaulting to OpenJDK 11 now. This will probably > lead to all kinds of fun incompatiblities between modular (Java 11) > and non-modular (Java 8) packages. And I've not even mentioned the > myriad of other, slightly incompatible changes between modular and > non-modular Java packages ... *SIGH* I think, assuming the proper -target / -release flags are used in all modular packages, this will largely be a non-issue. Java does its best to allow building packages with newer JDK versions while still allowing older JREs to run the code. That's not the case if -target and -release flags are missing. It also only really affects the consumers of Java _libraries_ built with JDK11. Almost nobody will notice if Maven was built with JDK 11. However this issue has been discussed elsewhere, and we've determined that we'll be fine (TM): https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/UNAKWOA4HZP233PT34OVXSYFWFX47FSF/ I do agree that we will need to migrate to JDK 11, but that'll take time. Perhaps we need Miro's fine management skills and strict policy enforcement to get us there a la python2->python3 migration. > > Perhaps this stuff is obvious to others already. In RHEL8 while we have > > certainly hit various problems with modularity at least I don't recall > > my teams hitting major issues with default streams being available for > > non-modular packages. > > Maybe the dogtag-pki team can offer some opinions here? I know that > they've had to deal with this on both RHEL and fedora. Most of the RHCS team's perceived shortcomings of Modularity have come from general issues, not ones stemming particularly from default streams. A portion has probably been because we did this the wrong way and committed to shipping it in RHEL before it was stabilized in Fedora. As has been mentioned before on this list, we have some version of Ursa {Prime,Major} in RHEL and we don't have large, conflicting efforts to maintain ursine build trees in parallel to modular ones like Fedora has. I've aired most of our opinions on this list in other threads. I don't think it is worth reiterating here. But I will say we have much more leniency when it comes to packaging there than we do here. --- My personal opinion is that modules in Fedora are broken because of politics and a lack of policy that exacerbates the technical problems. Mostly that's because people are refusing to collaborate and work together to solve problems, preferring to build their own silos. That'll drive contributors away and vastly increase technical debt in the long run, which we do really need to avoid to have a healthy community. Default modular streams shadowing non-modular packages is one such problem, especially when they ship libraries. My 2c. - Alex _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
