* Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com> [2015-02-24 10:12]:
> On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>> * Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com> [2015-02-24 09:58]:
>>> On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
[2015-02-24 09:29]:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>>>>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
<dominik(a)greysector.net> [2015-02-24 09:04]:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> There were several attempts in past like "can you
please support jdk
>>>>>>>> 7,6...in newer fedoras" and we always told no. When
come speech about "do it
>>>>>>>> on your own" suddenly many questions marks raised
up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last open bug is:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190137
>>>>>>>> the guy is willing to maintain it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fine, so let him do it and drop the Obsoletes: tag in
java-1.8.0-openjdk
>>>>>>> and its successors. You shouldn't arbitrarily block
people from
>>>>>>> re-introducing an older branch of any package back into
Fedora in the
>>>>>>> first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have no intention of blocking it. The reason for proposing
these
>>>>>> restrictions is that the Fedora Java stack will not work with
older
>>>>>> JDKs, therefore we need to make sure that it goes not get
installed on
>>>>>> the system unless explicitly requested by someone who knows what
they
>>>>>> are doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you do that by adding/updating (Build)Requires: in the
packages
>>>>> which won't work otherwise, not by adding Obsoletes:.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would generally work for most packages, but there is a new JDK
>>>> released every 2 years. This means that we would have to change the BR
>>>> and Requires for the entire Java stack (100s and 100s of packages) every
>>>> 2 years, which is non-trivial.
>>>
>>> First, we have versioned auto-requires generated during package build.
>>> Explicit requires on java aren't usually needed. If package requires
>>> "java > 1:1.7" then it is correct - the package can be assumed
to work
>>> with older JDK.
>>>
>>
>> While that is true in terms of source compatibility, it will work only
>> if it is compiled with the older JDK.
>>
>>> Secondly, it is fairly easy to add requires on "java-devel >=
1:1.8" to
>>> packages related to build systems like ant, maven or gradle. This would
>>> cover most cases of building Java packages using latest JDK.
>>>
>>
>> As you stated, it will cover most cases, but not all. More critically,
>> this does not solve the issue with requirement of 'java' itself.
>
> These few remaining cases can be easily handled by provenpackager as
> mass-change.
>
> Also, my proposal of introducing "java" metapackage (see my other post
> in this thread), which would always require the latest JDK, solves this
> problem in a different way, without modifying ordinary Java packages at all.
>
May you be more exact with the metapackage? Before I come up with legacy, I hoped to solve
the
issues via some metapackage. At the end I gave up, because the touch of user was always
necessary.
J.
Ah, I had missed that. Yes, the metapackage solution should work to the
same effect. I don't know if we can just call it 'java' though, unless
you are proposing that 'java' provision be removed from current openjdk
packages?
Deepak
> --
> Mikolaj Izdebski
> Software Engineer, Red Hat
> IRC: mizdebsk
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct