Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 25/02/15 00:31, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
>>> platform in Fedora =
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
>>>
>>> Change owner(s): Jiri Vanek
>>
>> IMHO, this
On 02/26/2015 02:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in
Fedora =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
== Detailed Description ==
This is no real work proposal.
Stepping back, I’m not sure this has been sai
On 02/27/2015 12:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/27/2015 10:47 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If we want to be sure that this legacy jdk will not interfere with
the system JDK let it not provide anything via alternatives. That
way people that want it can use it by playing with PATH/JAVA_HOME
(
roject.org
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:42:53 PM
Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
platform in Fedora
On 02/27/2015 12:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/27/2015 10:47 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If we want to be sure that this legacy jdk will not int
ubject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedora
>
> On 02/27/2015 12:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 02/27/2015 10:47 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >
> >> If we want to be sure that this legacy jdk will not inter
On 02/27/2015 12:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 02/27/2015 10:47 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If we want to be sure that this legacy jdk will not interfere with
the system JDK let it not provide anything via alternatives. That
way people that want it can use it by playing with PATH/JAVA_HOME
(
On 02/27/2015 10:58 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> The problem with alternatives is they are system wide so if one changes the
> alternatives to point to the legacy JDK for their third party app this
> becomes the JDK system wide. Thus all Fedora packaged Java apps (Tomcat,
> Jetty, JBoss, Fre
On 02/27/2015 10:47 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> If we want to be sure that this legacy jdk will not interfere with
> the system JDK let it not provide anything via alternatives. That
> way people that want it can use it by playing with PATH/JAVA_HOME
> (just like they do with other JVMs).
Th
On 02/27/2015 11:58 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jiri Vanek"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 12:54:04 PM
Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
platform
- Original Message -
> From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 12:58:05 PM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform
- Original Message -
> From: "Jiri Vanek"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 12:54:04 PM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedora
&
On 02/27/2015 11:47 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jiri Vanek"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:43:53 AM
Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
platform in Fedora
On 02/26/201
On 02/27/2015 11:48 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 15:46 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/26/2015 02:46 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/26/2015 10:13 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/26/2015 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/26/2015 09:20 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 15:46 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 02:46 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > On 02/26/2015 10:13 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> >> On 02/26/2015 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >>> On 02/26/2015 09:20 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 08:42 AM, Jiri Vanek w
- Original Message -
> From: "Jiri Vanek"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:43:53 AM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedora
>
> On 02/26/2015 02:51 PM,
On 26/02/15 14:59, Mario Torre wrote:
> In this case, it's about giving users one thing they asked, which is
> easy access to a previous version of Java. We can't afford
> maintaining it as Java Team, but this doesn't mean we will refuse to
> help people doing it. In fact, the exact existence of t
On 25/02/15 00:31, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform
>> in Fedora =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
>>
>> Change owner(s): Jiri Vanek
>
> IMHO, this is not implementable for a sim
On 02/26/2015 02:51 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/24/2015 10:34 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in
Fedora =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
Change owner(s): Jiri Vanek
Currently Fedora supports one m
On 02/26/2015 04:26 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Marcano"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 5:20:04 PM
Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
platform in Fedora
On 02/24/
On 02/26/2015 09:46 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
If you really think that old JDK should be removed during update and
insist on that
I believe that at least on Windows apps, including browser apps, can
request a specific version of Java runtime. Malware asks for versions
that are vulnerable to w
On 02/26/2015 04:20 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
On 02/24/2015 05:04 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in
Fedora =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
Change owner(s): Jiri Vanek
Currently Fedora supports o
- Original Message -
> From: "Robert Marcano"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 5:20:04 PM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedora
>
> On 02/24/2015
On 02/24/2015 05:04 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in
Fedora =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
Change owner(s): Jiri Vanek
Currently Fedora supports one main Java runtime and Java Development Kit (
- Original Message -
> From: "Mario Torre"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:59:35 PM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedora
On 02/26/2015 02:51 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> Small restart.
>
> Looking to the discussion, although many people claimed "against any
> rules" at the end it seems to me that everybody agree on "some rules" -
> even if it would be existence of metapackage or only removed virtual
> provides and prior
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 18:22 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 05:21 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 15:37 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> >> On 02/24/2015 02:15 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >>> On 02/24/2015 12:43 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> I am against official gu
On 02/26/2015 02:46 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 10:13 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>> On 02/26/2015 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> On 02/26/2015 09:20 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/26/2015 08:42 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> Also, my proposal of introducing "java" metapackage (se
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 09:00 +0100, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 08:36 PM, Sumit Bhardwaj wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have been reading this mail chain for some time and there is something I
> > wanted to say. It's kind
> > of a long mail, I apologize for taking so much of your time but reque
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in
> Fedora =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
>
> == Detailed Description ==
> This is no real work proposal.
Stepping back, I’m not sure this has been said explicitly: this is really a
packa
On 02/24/2015 10:34 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in
Fedora =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
Change owner(s): Jiri Vanek
Currently Fedora supports one main Java runtime and Java Development Kit (
On 02/26/2015 10:13 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/26/2015 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/26/2015 09:20 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/26/2015 08:42 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Also, my proposal of introducing "java" metapackage (see my other post
in this thread), which would always require
On 02/26/2015 09:43 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jiri Vanek"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:39:35 AM
Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
platform in Fedora
On 02/26/201
On 02/26/2015 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 09:20 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>> On 02/26/2015 08:42 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> Also, my proposal of introducing "java" metapackage (see my other post
> in this thread), which would always require the latest JDK, solves
> this
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Jiri Vanek"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:39:35 AM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedora
>
> On 02/26/2015 09:3
On 02/26/2015 09:31 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If no volunteer shows up for maintenance of old JDK then it would be
deprecated and obsoleted, as it's was done with previous JDK packages.
>>>
>>> How would that work _exactly_?
>>
>> 1) JDK maintainers announce deprecation in advance an
On 02/26/2015 09:31 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Mikolaj Izdebski"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:16:26 AM
Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
platform in Fedora
On 02/
On 02/26/2015 09:16 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/25/2015 06:58 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On 02/24/2015 06:41 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
"java" would be the preferred JRE in Fedora. The package would have no
content, but it would have Requires on preferred Fedora JRE, currently
java-
- Original Message -
> From: "Mikolaj Izdebski"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:16:26 AM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedora
>
> On 02/25/2015
On 02/26/2015 09:20 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/26/2015 08:42 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
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 pac
On 02/26/2015 08:42 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> 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 m
- Original Message -
> From: "Jiri Vanek"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:52:42 AM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedor
On 02/26/2015 08:45 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> I'm not really proposing as I haven't thought about this much yet, but
>> the idea was about be adding a few empty binary packages "java",
>> "java-devel", "java-headless" and so on (they could be subpackages of
>> javapackages-tools). Existing provides
On 02/25/2015 06:58 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> On 02/24/2015 06:41 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>> Hello,
"java" would be the preferred JRE in Fedora. The package would have no
content, but it would have Requires on preferred Fedora JRE, currently
java-1.8.0-openjdk. This could be ea
On 02/24/2015 06:22 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/24/2015 05:21 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 15:37 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/24/2015 02:15 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/24/2015 12:43 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
I am against official guidelines or policy for legacy
On 02/24/2015 08:36 PM, Sumit Bhardwaj wrote:
Hi All,
I have been reading this mail chain for some time and there is something I
wanted to say. It's kind
of a long mail, I apologize for taking so much of your time but request you to
please bear with me.
I work as a technical consultant on IBM
On 02/24/2015 05:21 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/24/2015 04:59 PM, Pete Travis wrote:
On Feb 24, 2015 8:32 AM, "Mikolaj Izdebski" wrote:
On 02/24/2015 02:17 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I would much rather live without any legacy jdk, and if so then
without any
rules. But not settin
On 02/24/2015 05:04 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/24/2015 04:36 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
* Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 10:12]:
On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
* Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 09:58]:
On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
* Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On 02/24/2015 04:36 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
* Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 10:12]:
On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
* Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 09:58]:
On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
* Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 09:29]:
On Tuesday, 24 February 20
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:58:17 -0500,
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
1. JDK-(N+1) is first shipped. The maintainer of JDK-N intends not to package
it, so JDK-(N+1) includes Obsoletes:JDK-N from the start.
2. Someone revives JDK-N. Oops, it cannot be installed because JDK-(N+1)
obsoletes it.
If
> On 02/24/2015 06:41 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Hello,
> >> "java" would be the preferred JRE in Fedora. The package would have no
> >> content, but it would have Requires on preferred Fedora JRE, currently
> >> java-1.8.0-openjdk. This could be easily changed as default JRE changes.
> >> The s
On 02/25/2015 06:39 AM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
/*Kevin Kofler*/ wrote on Wed, 25 Feb 2015 01:31:59 +0100:
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform
in Fedora =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
Change owner(s):
On 02/25/2015 10:07 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/25/2015 06:39 AM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
However, if there are JAR files which are useful
for a developer, they can have a -legacy version too!
There is no technical reason to suffix anything - you can put JARs that
depend on old version
On 02/25/2015 10:55 AM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
>
> /*Mikolaj Izdebski */ wrote on Wed, 25 Feb 2015
> 10:07:28 +0100:
>> On 02/25/2015 06:39 AM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
>>> However, if there are JAR files which are useful
>>> for a developer, they can have a -legacy version too!
>> There is no t
/*Mikolaj Izdebski */ wrote on Wed, 25 Feb 2015
10:07:28 +0100:
On 02/25/2015 06:39 AM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
However, if there are JAR files which are useful
for a developer, they can have a -legacy version too!
There is no technical reason to suffix anything - you can put JARs that
depen
- Original Message -
> From: "Mikolaj Izdebski"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:14:35 AM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedora
>
> On 02/24/2015 04:
On 02/24/2015 06:41 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Hello,
>> "java" would be the preferred JRE in Fedora. The package would have no
>> content, but it would have Requires on preferred Fedora JRE, currently
>> java-1.8.0-openjdk. This could be easily changed as default JRE changes.
>> The same is for o
On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 04:03 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>> On 02/24/2015 03:51 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
2.) Ensure dist upgrades remove old JDK package (which may no longer
get security updates).
>>>
>>> Firstly, as I understand upgrade isn't su
On 02/25/2015 06:39 AM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
> However, if there are JAR files which are useful
> for a developer, they can have a -legacy version too!
There is no technical reason to suffix anything - you can put JARs that
depend on old version of JDK in /usr/{share,lib}/java-x.y.z, for examp
/*Kevin Kofler*/ wrote on Wed, 25 Feb 2015 01:31:59 +0100:
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform
in Fedora =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
Change owner(s): Jiri Vanek
IMHO, this is not implementable for a
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform
> in Fedora =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora
>
> Change owner(s): Jiri Vanek
IMHO, this is not implementable for a simple practical reason: All the JARs
we ship are b
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:41:45PM -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Hello,
> > "java" would be the preferred JRE in Fedora. The package would have no
> > content, but it would have Requires on preferred Fedora JRE, currently
> > java-1.8.0-openjdk. This could be easily changed as default JRE changes.
Hi All,
I have been reading this mail chain for some time and there is something
I wanted to say. It's kind of a long mail, I apologize for taking so
much of your time but request you to please bear with me. I work as a
technical consultant on IBM WebSphere, IBM BPM, Java/J2EE and Python
technolog
Hello,
> "java" would be the preferred JRE in Fedora. The package would have no
> content, but it would have Requires on preferred Fedora JRE, currently
> java-1.8.0-openjdk. This could be easily changed as default JRE changes.
> The same is for other binary subpackages of "java", respectively.
>
On 02/24/2015 05:21 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 15:37 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>> On 02/24/2015 02:15 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> On 02/24/2015 12:43 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
I am against official guidelines or policy for legacy JDK packages. I
don't think that a
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 15:37 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 02:15 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > On 02/24/2015 12:43 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> >> I am against official guidelines or policy for legacy JDK packages. I
> >> don't think that any such policy is needed and it would only enc
On 02/24/2015 04:59 PM, Pete Travis wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2015 8:32 AM, "Mikolaj Izdebski" wrote:
>>
>> On 02/24/2015 02:17 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I would much rather live without any legacy jdk, and if so then
> without any
rules. But not setting
them will bring chaos for maj
On Feb 24, 2015 8:32 AM, "Mikolaj Izdebski" wrote:
>
> On 02/24/2015 02:17 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >> I would much rather live without any legacy jdk, and if so then
without any
> >> rules. But not setting
> >> them will bring chaos for majority of users.
> >
> > I have a question: Is the
On 02/24/2015 04:36 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 10:12]:
>> On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>> * Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 09:58]:
On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24
> 09:29]:
>>
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 15:19 +0100, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 02:58 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > 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 a
* Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 10:12]:
> On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > * Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 09:58]:
> >> On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> >>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24
> >>> 09:29]:
> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak
On 02/24/2015 02:17 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>> I would much rather live without any legacy jdk, and if so then without any
>> rules. But not setting
>> them will bring chaos for majority of users.
>
> I have a question: Is there anybody that stepped in to maintain the legacy
> jdk?
> If t
On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 09:58]:
>> On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24
>>> 09:29]:
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
* Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 09:58]:
> On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24
> > 09:29]:
> >> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> >>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24
> >>> 09:04]:
> On Tuesday,
On 02/24/2015 04:03 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/24/2015 03:51 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
2.) Ensure dist upgrades remove old JDK package (which may no longer
get security updates).
Firstly, as I understand upgrade isn't supposed to remove packages by
default, unless they are obsole
On 02/24/2015 03:51 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>> 2.) Ensure dist upgrades remove old JDK package (which may no longer
>> get security updates).
>
> Firstly, as I understand upgrade isn't supposed to remove packages by
> default, unless they are obsoleted or conflict with something. Are you
>
On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 09:29]:
>> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24
>>> 09:04]:
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote:
[...]
>
On 02/24/2015 01:34 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:43 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> [...]
>>> option one - introducing new packages - preferred
>>> 1. main jdk is proclaimed as dead as it was until now. The new jdk is
>>> derived
>>> as new package prviousName
On 02/24/2015 03:11 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote:
* Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [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
On 02/24/2015 02:15 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 12:43 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>> I am against official guidelines or policy for legacy JDK packages. I
>> don't think that any such policy is needed and it would only encourage
>> adoption of old packages for which there might be no secu
* Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 09:29]:
> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24
> > 09:04]:
> > > On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > There were several attempts in past li
On 02/24/2015 02:58 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
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 man
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [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 a
* Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [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" suddenl
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: htt
On 02/24/2015 02:17 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jiri Vanek"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:02:38 PM
Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
platform in Fedora
On 02/24/201
- Original Message -
> From: "Jiri Vanek"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:02:38 PM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java
> platform in Fedora
>
> On 02/24/2015 01:50 PM,
On 02/24/2015 12:43 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
I am against official guidelines or policy for legacy JDK packages. I
don't think that any such policy is needed and it would only encourage
adoption of old packages for which there might be no security updates.
Well thats the point - people are c
On 02/24/2015 01:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 13:34, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:43 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
[...]
option one - introducing new packages - preferred
1. main jdk is proclaimed as dead as it was un
Package maintainers are responsible for their packages. If maintainer of
"main JDK" is also maintaining "legacy JDK" then (s)he should be
responsible for both of them. I don't see why any special rule should be
defined.
You missed very important point. The maintainer will never be same. We (peo
On 02/24/2015 01:34 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:43 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
[...]
option one - introducing new packages - preferred
1. main jdk is proclaimed as dead as it was until now. The new jdk is derived
as new package prviousName-legacy
Fedora al
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 13:34, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:43 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> [...]
> > > option one - introducing new packages - preferred
> > > 1. main jdk is proclaimed as dead as it was until now. The new jdk is
> > > derived
> > > as
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 12:43 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
[...]
> > option one - introducing new packages - preferred
> > 1. main jdk is proclaimed as dead as it was until now. The new jdk is
> > derived
> > as new package prviousName-legacy
>
> Fedora already supports multiple JDKs
I am against official guidelines or policy for legacy JDK packages. I
don't think that any such policy is needed and it would only encourage
adoption of old packages for which there might be no security updates.
Of course package maintainers can agree on specific rules that apply to
their packages
93 matches
Mail list logo
