On 11/21/2013 08:57 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
These two steps make it rather non-simple; one would also determine
which parts of the code base have not been exercised.
If the test suite is so weak that it doesn't cover such basic issues,
you will have trouble with *any* change, not just this
Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-20 22:46:32)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:39:48PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
The thing is this is pointless. If the people that would do most of this
auditing (Java SIG) do not agree with such scenario the result would be
that old Require:java will
Am 20.11.2013 20:56, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
- Original Message -
From: Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:23:29 PM
Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless
On 20/11/13 20:23, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
We were speaking about giving more power to SIGs related to
discussion about Fedora.next. This can be a good start. Stano and
Aleksandar are working on Java maintenance a lot, Java SIG
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov
akurt...@redhat.com wrote:
I agree with you that the current Features/Changes system is useless as is
now. It was supposed to be a way to collect information for Release notes
nothing more AFAIK.
From the FESCo side, IMHO collecting
Quoting Miloslav Trmač (2013-11-21 20:57:38)
But if you want a simpler guide:
* Install your app with headless Java
* Run it
* Did it crash?
These two steps make it rather non-simple; one would also determine
which parts of the code base have not been exercised.
The crash
Am 21.11.2013 21:50, schrieb Stanislav Ochotnicky:
Regardless..what I meant to say: Nobody - as in I don't see anyone jumping up
and down and volunteering to do the work and maintain the code, provide ways
to
workaround those inevitable false positives etc. I have asked and received a
Quoting Jerry James (2013-11-21 17:01:07)
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
(IIRC somewhere in the thread it's been suggested that software can't
know which one to use: how would the maintainers know then?)
Yes, I raised that question early on in this
Quoting Miloslav Trmač (2013-11-21 13:48:51)
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov
akurt...@redhat.com wrote:
I agree with you that the current Features/Changes system is useless as is
now. It was supposed to be a way to collect information for Release notes
nothing more
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
In fedora we do our best to figure out what the best course of action is and
then we execute that.
The best course of action _given some limited resources_, which may
drastically alter the outcome.
Angle 2) Reduce the
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Quoting Jerry James (2013-11-21 17:01:07)
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
(IIRC somewhere in the thread it's been suggested that software can't
know which one to use: how
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 20/11/13 18:53, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I start to think this conversation goes nowhere. The whole split is
superficial and most java developers
Quoting Miloslav Trmač (2013-11-21 13:48:51)
In the thread you and others have suggested that there in fact there
are no or few Other developers, and this is all a Java SIG internal
thing; I don't know whether it's true (and I don't currently care to
collect the data); the proposal certainly
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:34:08 AM
Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
Am 20.11.2013 20:56, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
- Original Message
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
(IIRC somewhere in the thread it's been suggested that software can't
know which one to use: how would the maintainers know then?)
Yes, I raised that question early on in this thread. The response I
got was to read this:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:06:44AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 20/11/13 20:23, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
We were speaking about giving more power to SIGs related to
discussion about Fedora.next. This can be a good start.
Le Mar 19 novembre 2013 09:35, Stanislav Ochotnicky a écrit :
You can use following Oracle article as a starting point[1]. But maybe
OpenJDK
maintainers can provide better alternative. Generally though there are
*very*
few packages in Fedora that would require full java.
[1]
Quoting Reindl Harald (2013-11-19 23:38:21)
Am 19.11.2013 20:29, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 11/19/2013 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
what about having a java-1.7.0-openjdk meta-package obsoleting
the existing one and
Le Mer 20 novembre 2013 15:04, Stanislav Ochotnicky a écrit :
Can we actually list good reasons to have a metapackage or x11 subpackage
that
would outweight the inevitable disadvantages? If you *really* feel I
misunderstood these two ideas we can start an etherpad or something so we
can
Quoting Nicolas Mailhot (2013-11-20 16:20:34)
Le Mer 20 novembre 2013 15:04, Stanislav Ochotnicky a écrit :
Can we actually list good reasons to have a metapackage or x11 subpackage
that
would outweight the inevitable disadvantages? If you *really* feel I
misunderstood these two ideas
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:04:16PM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
So which one of them would Provides: java? I'll give you several variants:
headless provides java:
- breaks compatibility expectations of older/3rd party RPMs
- we suddenly switch every Java package in Fedora. No
@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:10:56 PM
Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:04:16PM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
So which one of them would Provides: java? I'll give you several
variants:
headless provides java
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I start to think this conversation goes nowhere. The whole split is
superficial and most java developers are used to get full jvm if they
require java. This would probably change with Java 8 introducing Profiles
[1]. And any
- Original Message -
From: Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:53:15 PM
Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -0500
On 20/11/13 18:53, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I start to think this conversation goes nowhere. The whole split is
superficial and most java developers are used to get full jvm if they
require java. This would probably change with
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
We were speaking about giving more power to SIGs related to
discussion about Fedora.next. This can be a good start. Stano and
Aleksandar are working on Java maintenance a lot, Java SIG members
are speaking together, so I have
- Original Message -
From: Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:23:29 PM
Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:39:48PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
The thing is this is pointless. If the people that would do most of this
auditing (Java SIG) do not agree with such scenario the result would be
that old Require:java will be kept whenever full java jvm is used as this
- Original Message -
From: Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:46:32 PM
Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:39:48PM -0500
Quoting Jerry James (2013-11-18 16:54:28)
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
I believe OpenJDK maintainers will agree that automatically detecting if
java or
java-headless is supposed to be required is not really feasible. There's too
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 09:29:40AM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-18 17:08:12)
On Nov 15, 2013 4:09 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com
wrote:
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
* (optional) Mass-change spec files that have
* Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com [2013-11-19 03:35]:
Quoting Jerry James (2013-11-18 16:54:28)
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
I believe OpenJDK maintainers will agree that automatically detecting if
java or
Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-19 10:49:57)
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 09:29:40AM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-18 17:08:12)
On Nov 15, 2013 4:09 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com
wrote:
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15
Am 19.11.2013 17:15, schrieb Stanislav Ochotnicky:
I mean (and sorry that I wasn't clear), why the choice to make java-headless
the special case? Especially if (as it appears from the reply to Jerry
James), most packages in Fedora will only need the headless version.
(So the headless version
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/19/2013 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.11.2013 17:15, schrieb Stanislav Ochotnicky:
I mean (and sorry that I wasn't clear), why the choice to make
java-headless the special case? Especially if (as it appears
from the reply to Jerry
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/19/2013 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.11.2013 17:15, schrieb Stanislav Ochotnicky:
I mean (and sorry that I wasn't clear), why the choice to make
java-headless
Am 19.11.2013 20:29, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 11/19/2013 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
what about having a java-1.7.0-openjdk meta-package obsoleting
the existing one and pulling *both* but decide if Fedora packages
if
Quoting Ville Skyttä (2013-11-15 18:30:33)
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/jing-trang.git/commit/?id=6d46e64fe0f365a947c7095adaf65e8cc2c90d5b
Ugh. Why did you have to do that?
Huh, wow, that's not at
On Po, 2013-11-18 at 07:20 +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
I'd expect out of ~800 packages that BR java only very few are going to be
affected by java-headless change (i.e. they'd have to revert the change). I'd
estimate maybe 30 broken packages and some we know wouldn't work so we would
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:20:34 +0100
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
...snip...
How about this:
* I file bug for every package that BRs java
* We'll give maintainers two weeks (or maybe a month) to look at
the bug and possibly fix their packages.
* If they
- Original Message -
From: Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 2:51:08 AM
Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
Le Sam 16 novembre 2013 10:13
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
I believe OpenJDK maintainers will agree that automatically detecting if java
or
java-headless is supposed to be required is not really feasible. There's too
many variables at play.
Then how are we
On Nov 15, 2013 4:09 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com
wrote:
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
* (optional) Mass-change spec files that have Requires: java to
Requires:
java-headless
Other developers:
* Modify spec files to have Requires: java-headless
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 02:34:00AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
== Scope ==
Proposal owners:
* Modify javapackages-tools package to automatically generate
java-headless
autorequires (simple change)
* Identify
Le Sam 16 novembre 2013 10:13, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
Wouldn't it be better to inspect the *.class files to find out what
other classes they depend on. Then you could have automatically
generated Perl-style dependencies like:
Requires: java(java.net.URL)
I'm pretty sure that
= Proposed System Wide Change: Headless Java =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/HeadlessJava
Change owner(s): Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com
Server installations of Fedora should usually not pull in packages related to
X system or sound subsystem. For this reason part of
thank you!
Am 15.11.2013 12:28, schrieb Jaroslav Reznik:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Headless Java =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/HeadlessJava
Change owner(s): Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com
Server installations of Fedora should usually not pull in packages
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
* (optional) Mass-change spec files that have Requires: java to Requires:
java-headless
Other developers:
* Modify spec files to have Requires: java-headless instead of Requires:
java
* (note) JavaSIG has several proven packages that could
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
* (optional) Mass-change spec files that have Requires: java to Requires:
java-headless
Other developers:
* Modify spec files to have Requires: java-headless
Quoting Ville Skyttä (2013-11-15 14:11:37)
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
* (optional) Mass-change spec files that have Requires: java to
Requires:
java-headless
Other developers:
*
Il 15/11/2013 14:22, Stanislav Ochotnicky ha scritto:
Quoting Ville Skyttä (2013-11-15 14:11:37)
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
* (optional) Mass-change spec files that have Requires: java to
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/jing-trang.git/commit/?id=6d46e64fe0f365a947c7095adaf65e8cc2c90d5b
Ugh. Why did you have to do that?
Huh, wow, that's not at all the response I was expecting. What did you
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
== Scope ==
Proposal owners:
* Modify javapackages-tools package to automatically generate java-headless
autorequires (simple change)
* Identify and file bugs for affected packages (repoquery and bugzilla bug
= Proposed System Wide Change: Headless Java =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/HeadlessJava
Change owner(s): Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com
Server installations of Fedora should usually not pull in packages related to
X system or sound subsystem. For this reason part of
54 matches
Mail list logo
