On 09:33:51 Monday 25 July 2011 Deepak Bhole wrote:
* Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> [2011-07-25 15:54]:
> Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger(a)gmail.com) said:
> > Robyn and I have talked about how the feature process could be adapted
> > to allow for more late work to occur however none of that talk has
> > turned into anything solid yet. One point that bears on this is that
> > the Feature Owners must be willing to commit to doing all the work
> > involved in coordination when they submit something late. In other
> > words, if Java 7 update went in well before the feature deadline, the
> > expectation would be that packagers whose packages depended on Java
> > would need to adapt to Java 7. The expectation now that the Feature
> > Freeze has passed is that the people pushing Java 7 into the repos
> > would also need to seek out and fix all the packages that depend on
> > them that are broken.
> Would we actually be shipping only 7, or both 6 and 7?
This hasn't been debated yet, but I am very much in favour of having
only 7 in Fedora 16.
The less duplicating packages we have - the better :). I'm all for reducing
the number of jvms we ship (assuming that OpenJDK 7 doesn't break many
If the reason for asking was w.r.t re-builds, it is unlikely that most
applications will need a rebuild -- only those using deprecated APIs
(which would have been deprecated for years now) and private APIs would
be affected. That would likely be a small subset.
Opinions from others are welcome..