Re: F36 Change: java-17-openjdk as system JDK in F36 (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 09:47:12AM +0100, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 11/1/21 18:48, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:37:42AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>== Dependencies ==
> >>Around 2000 packages will need attendance (that is aprox 1/3 of time
> >>of jdk11 bump, but It seems, that 1100 packages remained on jdk8)
> >>  $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-headless |wc -l
> >>  1007
> >>  $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java | wc -l
> >>  53
> >>  $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-devel | wc -l
> >>  28
> >>  $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless |wc -l
> >>  1003
> >>  $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-1.8.0-openjdk  | wc -l
> >>  80
> >>  $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel  | wc -l
> >>  42
> >>  $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-11-openjdk-headless |wc -l
> >>  1030
> >>  $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-11-openjdk  | wc -l
> >>  78
> >>  $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-11-openjdk-devel  | wc -l
> >>  36
> >Shouldn't those queries be done with 'repoquery --arch src' ?
> 
> They should be run together with it. Quick scan made them all return 0...
> Will add this .
> >
> >>== Contingency Plan ==
> >>* If the mass rebuild, after the change application, breaks to much
> >>packages, or some important will be unfixable, jdk11 must be restored
> >>back to the position of system jdk.
> >>* Contingency mechanism: Return jdk8 as system jdk and mass rebuild
> >>again. Note, that this may be very hard, because during build of
> >>packages by jdk8, by jdk11 built dependencies will be picekd up, so
> >>build will fail. Maybe several iterations of mass rebuild will be
> >>needed.
> >>* Contingency deadline: beta freeze
> >
> >Hmm, so if the contingency plan may require a few rounds of rebuilds,
> >should we activate it earlier than beta freeze? At the beta freeze
> >we expect things to be "testable", and if at that point we are with
> >a bunch of java applications that will not run, it'll be hard to test
> >things. So I think we should move this a bit earlier.
> 
> You are most likely right.
> Considering it should really be finished before branching, taht moves it somewhere to :
> 73 	Announce release blocking deliverables 	Tue 2022-02-01 	Tue 2022-02-01 	0 (8days before branching, 22 before beta freeze)
> 
> wdyt?

+1

Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux