On 3/30/20 5:26 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:05 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11 . >> >> == Summary == >> Update the system JDK in Fedora from java-1.8.0-openjdk to java-11-openjdk. >> >> == Owner == >> * Name: [[User:jvanek| Jiri Vanek]] >> * Email: <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> >> * Product: java and java stack >> * Responsible WG: java-sig (java and java-maint) >> >> == Detailed Description == >> Fedora currently ships: >> * java-1.8.0-openjdk (LTS) >> * java-11-openjdk (LTS) >> * an java-latest-openjdk (on jdk14, STS). >> where the version-less '''java''' and '''javac''' (and friends) are >> provided by java-1.8.0-openjdk. >> >> So every package honoring the packaging rules and requiring java , >> java-headless or java-devel is built in brew by > > What is brew? Sorry, that was supposed to be koji. Fixed in the document. > >> java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel and pulls java-1.8.0-openjdk(-headless) in >> runtime (See [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java java] ). Also >> javapackaging-tools are using java-1.8.0-openjdk as hardcoded runtime >> (see [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Decouple_system_java_setting_from_java_command_setting >> changes]) ... >> >> === "Political disclaimer" === >> In previous bumps, we, Red Hat's openjdk team, were a driving force to >> bump the system JDK. In this case, we are a bit reluctant, but the >> desire from users to bump the JDK seems strong. We are quite happy to >> skip JDK11 as system JDK at all, and jump directly from 8 to 17 in >> some three years. > > Skipping all the way from 8 → 17 sounds like there would be even more > potential for breaking things, so switching to 11 as an intermediary > step seems like a good idea to me. Right you are. thank you. > >> == Benefit to Fedora == >> JDK11 is out for some time, and most of the bleeding edge >> distributions already make it default. Most of the projects already >> adapted new features and make necessary forward-compatible chnages. >> Although we can can expect some family of packages to remain on jdk8 >> for ever, [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dune_(film) the spice should >> flow] ... >> * Other developers: >> ** based on selected approach to tune the main build tools >> *** at least jpackage-tools and maven will be very likely affected >> ** based on selected approach to tune the rpmbuild/macros >> ** many java package maintainers will maybe need to adapt theirs packages >> *** After the approach is agreed, mass rebuild must be performed >> *** FTBFS bugs connected with this proposal, maybe with jira ticket to >> allow discussion. >> *** Solutions to most common errors should be gathered and published >> * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9347 9347] >> ** mass rebuild will be required for this change >> * Policies and guidelines: how to deal with build failures, eventually >> how to use some jdk11 specific build features will be provided >> * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) > > I agree with Miro. These changes should be done in a side tag, or even > better, also tested in COPR before that. Kind of like how the python > 3.9 bringup is happening right now. This way, potential issues can be > caught early. Not sure how the coper cna be managed. As side tag, yes, woudl be awesome. > > Additionally, just switching 1.8.0 → 11 and walking away will probably > break rawhide packages for years to come, given the state the Java > stack is in. Some Java packagers / packages will definitely need some > help there. The Stewardship SIG can help with some issues (a few > members are provenpackagers), but our resources are limited, and we > "only" maintain ~200 Java packages directly. As replied to Miro. Help will definitely be provided. But direct touch to packages(two provenpackagers on board here), only in great need. Otherwise the few of us, incluing fwhat remained from java-sig, would get swamped. Hope that sounds reasonable. J. > > Fabio > > PS: I hope my post doesn't sound too negative. I'm happy this switch > is finally happening :) Not at all. Those must be clarified. Tahnx, cross fingers :) _______________________________________________ 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
