On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 15:05 -0700, Chris Hubick wrote:
The last note says:
> Jpackage is a Java software repository compatible with Fedora.
I think this language could lead to exactly the problem I had with FC4,
where users will read this and run out an do a yum update from the JPP
repository, not knowing it will mess up their FC Java.
Totally agreed. JPackage is only partially compatible with FC.
> Avoid installing third-party packages that are not compatible
> the JPackage repository.
> Do not install RPM packages from vendors such as Sun Microsystems,
> IBM, or BEA without first repackaging them using the appropriate
> JPackage wrapper or compatibility package. Failure to do so leads
> to unpredictable results.
I also think this language is a little strong/absolute sounding. I
personally would offer more of a "doing so *can* lead to problems with
the shipped solutions" stance (if you don't know what you are doing).
That is to say, if you do go ahead and take a stock FC5 box and install
Sun's RPM and non-jpackage Java software, as long as your path's are
right, it *will* probably work.
I like the strong wording. My understanding is that the Sun RPM won't
work for certain things if you have SELinux enabled because they don't
set the file attributes during install. This is something we can fix in
the JPackage wrapper. I also think it's in everybody's best interest if
Sun, IBM, BEA _did_ package their systems using the JPackage guidelines,
so spreading the meme that it is a requirement is a good idea. In a
sense, it also "breaks" alternatives, since users may put /opt/whatever
in their path. Why encourage something that is just bad practice?
The other thing I notice is the complete lack of another note clause
resembling the proposed:
"Please note that despite utilizing the JPackage installation
guidelines, several of the Java application software packages shipped
with Fedora have been slightly modified from those provided by JPackage,
in order to work out of the box with the included compiler and runtime
environment. Additionally, the Fedora packages also include
pre-compiled fast and optimized native binary code alongside the
original Java bytecode JAR files. As a result, if you modify your Yum
configuration and update to application software packages shipped
directly through the JPackage Yum repository, you will end up with an
unpredictable mix of bytecode and binary software. So although Fedora
allows the use of JPackage for installing alternate Java Runtime
Environments, JPackage is not necessarily recommended for the Java
application software packages which use that runtime. Users wishing to
maintain a supported software platform, by using the Free Java Runtime
Environment shipped with Fedora, are advised to only update their
systems with Java application software packages provided through the
Fedora and Fedora Extras Yum repositories, and not directly through
JPackage unless they also plan to switch to one of their
alternate/proprietary Java runtimes. The Fedora provided application
software packages should continue to work with other Java Runtime
Environments which follow JPackage guidelines, but as stated above,
there is a good chance unmodified JPackage applications will not work
with the default Runtime Environment shipped with Fedora."
Do people not think this is a good idea then? Too verbose?
I'd like to hear some other opinions on this. Personally, I wish there
was a way to say something similar in fewer words... How about...
* A note about the JPackage Project RPM repository. Fedora Core
includes many packages derived from the excellent JPackage Project.
These packages have been forked to remove non-free software dependencies
and to make use of GCJ's ahead-of-time compilation feature. Fedora
users should use the Fedora repositories for updates to these packages,
and the JPackage repository for packages not provided by Fedora.