Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com> writes:
I've got a few comments and questions about the recently filed
us to switch from Requires: java to Requires: java-headless. First, the
bugs list some web pages to view for more information. Number two on that
list is this:
which has a really unfortunate backslash in it. People clicking on that
link get a "sorry, no such page" message from the web server. It should
have been this:
Yup, my bad. I guess this was added automatically when I was
copy-pasting from wiki where I was preparing the message. The tracking
bug has correct link at least...
Second, the bugs talk about this as a proposed guidelines change,
now talks about it. Doesn't
that mean that this is an official guideline, not a proposed change to the
I believe you misread it:
See tracking bug #1067528 or Headless Java change proposal and Java Packaging
guidelines for more details about this change.
The work "proposal" was wrt Headless Java change. Fedora doesn't usually
require immediate change to all packages in repositories with each
guideline change. However for Headless Java change to have any effect
most packages have to migrate. I re-read the bugs and I don't see how it
could be read as "proposed guidelines change". I had a few people read
the messages before filing the bug and it seemed to be OK as well.
In any case, yes the official guideline is prefer "java-headless" if
your library/app can use it. Sorry for the confusion.
Third, developers are offered two options in those bugs: (1)
anything and an automatic tool will make the change for you on or after
March 17, or (2) make the change to java-headless yourself. I have one
package for which I need a third option: tell the automated tool that this
bug was filed in error, the package really doesn't work with java-headless,
and don't touch the package. I realize that I can mark the bug as assigned
and leave it open indefinitely, but I'd rather have some option for closing
the bug, please.
Quoting from the bugreport:
Automated tool will not touch bugs that are not in NEW state.
If you close the bug (whatever reason) the automated tool will not touch
your package(s). I guess I should have added "close" as valid way to
Slightly off-topic: fedora-review is telling packagers NOT to add
"Requires: jpackage-utils" to javadoc subpackages because that is added
automatically, but I see no mention of this on
Guidelines state that package must have "R: jpackage-utils" because it
contains filesystem (/usr/share/javadoc directory). If the requires is
generated automatically all the better but that's not the guidelines
I don't see this as much of a problem. Guidelines are there to ensure
packages have proper requires. Tooling can improve faster than
guidelines. It's not breaking anything and f-r is a guidance tool. It's
not guaranteed to comply with guidelines 100%, maintainers should know
guidelines in any case and behave appropriately :-) Basically it boils
down to understanding "why" some f-r check fails. We try to point out
potential improvements/fixes and sometimes the suggestions might be
incorrect. For example if you wanted to keep the same package on EPEL6
and Fedora where EPEL6 wouldn't generate the jpackage-utils requires.
Hope this clears up everything, if not drop by #fedora-java IRC
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com