On 29/05/2022 02:57, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
There is no indication that the JDK is such a thing - in fact given
the packagers are struggling that is a good indication that the JDK is
being regularly updated.
Every 3 months in a patch release. I don't think maintainers will
manually backport
On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 2:57 AM Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:52:51 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >On 28/05/2022 19:31, drago01 wrote:
> >> That's incorrect. They can be outdated, but there is no inherit reason
> >> why they have to be.
> >
> >Most upstreams don't care about bundled
On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:52:51 +0200, you wrote:
>On 28/05/2022 19:31, drago01 wrote:
>> That's incorrect. They can be outdated, but there is no inherit reason
>> why they have to be.
>
>Most upstreams don't care about bundled libraries. They bundle them once
>and then forget.
But most != all as
On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 2:53 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 28/05/2022 19:31, drago01 wrote:
> > That's incorrect. They can be outdated, but there is no inherit reason
> > why they have to be.
>
> Most upstreams don't care about bundled libraries. They bundle them once
> and then
On 28/05/2022 19:31, drago01 wrote:
That's incorrect. They can be outdated, but there is no inherit reason
why they have to be.
Most upstreams don't care about bundled libraries. They bundle them once
and then forget.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Friday, May 27, 2022, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 26/05/2022 19:31, drago01 wrote:
>
>> But bundled libs and properly tested / certified vs dynamic linking and
>> less testing / no certification.
>>
>
> Bundled libraries are always outdated and even
> Am 27.05.2022 um 17:37 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> :
>
> On 27/05/2022 15:30, Peter Boy wrote:
>> Really sorry, but such a statement is simply intellectual bullshit.
>> Unfortunately, it is not possible to formulate this in a more friendly yet
>> unambiguous way. And in this thread
On 27/05/2022 15:30, Peter Boy wrote:
Really sorry, but such a statement is simply intellectual bullshit.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to formulate this in a more friendly yet
unambiguous way. And in this thread in particular, the many allegations,
unclouded by any expertise but made all
> Am 27.05.2022 um 14:00 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> :
>
> Bundled libraries are always outdated and even vulnerable.
Really sorry, but such a statement is simply intellectual bullshit.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to formulate this in a more friendly yet
unambiguous way. And
> Am 27.05.2022 um 14:00 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> :
>
> Bundled libraries are always outdated and even vulnerable.
Really sorry, but such a statement is simply intellectual bullshit.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to formulate this in a more friendly yet
unambiguous way. And
On 26/05/2022 20:29, Stephen Snow wrote:
Libraries are bundled into jars not the source, etc... this all
snowballs across what 4 version now supported?
OpenJDK is a native ELF binary, not a JAR.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On 26/05/2022 19:31, drago01 wrote:
But bundled libs and properly tested / certified vs dynamic linking and
less testing / no certification.
Bundled libraries are always outdated and even vulnerable. We should
avoid bundling as much as possible.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev
On 26/05/2022 17:40, drago01 wrote:
Why would we do that? Is the build process really more important than
shipping tested software?
Yes.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 5/26/22 14:17, Stephen Snow wrote:
Also, it may be good to take a look at what AdoptOpenJDK is doing with
the Eclipse Foundation based Adoptium Project, specifically the Eclipse
Temurin subproject
https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/eclipse-temurin-compliance which
is going to handle the
On 5/26/22 12:31, drago01 wrote:
I am not talking about FLOSS vs non FLOSS, that's obvious. But bundled
libs and properly tested / certified vs dynamic linking and less testing
/ no certification.
But if OpenJDK-based binaries can't be distributed without passing the
TCK, then it isn't really
On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 14:07 -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 07:31:45PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > I am not talking about FLOSS vs non FLOSS, that's obvious. But
> > bundled libs
> > and properly tested / certified vs dynamic linking and less testing
> > / no
> >
So my take on the TCK is that Red Hat signed the OCTLA and Fedora
Community get's to test their OpenJDK against it as a subequence. I
didn't think Fedora the project, had any legal except what Red Hat
provides, maybe I'm mistaken though so someone should clarify if they
know for sure. Not only
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 07:31:45PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> I am not talking about FLOSS vs non FLOSS, that's obvious. But bundled libs
> and properly tested / certified vs dynamic linking and less testing / no
> certification.
I've been following this circular thread from the outset (And I do
On Thursday, May 26, 2022, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 5/26/22 10:40, drago01 wrote:
>
>> Why would we do that? Is the build process really more important than
>> shipping tested software?
>>
>
> For Fedora? Yes.
>
> Fedora includes lots of untested (in the formal, TCK sense) software.
> It does
On 5/26/22 10:40, drago01 wrote:
Why would we do that? Is the build process really more important than
shipping tested software?
For Fedora? Yes.
Fedora includes lots of untested (in the formal, TCK sense) software.
It does not include non-FLOSS software (except maybe in very specific
On Thursday, May 26, 2022, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 5/26/22 11:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>> 2. Are there ways that a non-TCK compliant version could be distributed?
>>
>
> I would suggest phrasing that slightly differently: the version being
> distributed could very well be fully
On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 11:32, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 5/26/22 11:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > 2. Are there ways that a non-TCK compliant version could be distributed?
>
> I would suggest phrasing that slightly differently: the version being
> distributed could very well be fully compliant
On 5/26/22 11:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
2. Are there ways that a non-TCK compliant version could be distributed?
I would suggest phrasing that slightly differently: the version being
distributed could very well be fully compliant (would pass the TCK if
tested), but may not have been tested.
On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 08:19, Stephen Snow wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 12:55 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 26/05/2022 00:02, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > IANAL, but I believe APIs are not eligible for
> > > trademark protection, so Fedora would only need to change the
Also, it may be good to take a look at what AdoptOpenJDK is doing with
the Eclipse Foundation based Adoptium Project, specifically the Eclipse
Temurin subproject
https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/eclipse-temurin-compliance which
is going to handle the compliance requirements.
In this
There sure seems to be confusion here around what exactly the TCK or
JCK actually is. First off it is not a license. It is however a
technical compatability certification which guarantees technical
compatability between the different flavours of OpenJDK available out
there, like RedHats
On 26/05/2022 00:02, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
IANAL, but I believe APIs are not eligible for
trademark protection, so Fedora would only need to change the stuff
that is*not* part of the API.
Yes. Google won a lawsuit against Oracle in the Supreme Court.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev
On 5/25/22 13:49, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> The rename will really not help.
If it is not possible to ship an uncertified version then OpenJDK is
not free software and Fedora should not have it at all, in which
case the whole discussion is moot. Otherwise, it is possible
to ship a compatible version
The rename will really not help.
On 5/25/22 18:01, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 25/05/2022 15:03, Jiri Vanek wrote:
We can not ship uncerified JDK. Sooner or later a swarm of lawyers would appear.
Let's rename it to icedtea then.
--
Jiri Vanek Mgr.
Principal QA Software Engineer
Red
On 25/05/2022 15:34, Jiri Vanek wrote:
When we were shipping icedtea6 and later icedtea7, it still required
TCK, so iced tea is not an option.
Easy fix: java-XX-openjdk -> coffee-named-language-XX.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On 25/05/2022 15:03, Jiri Vanek wrote:
We can not ship uncerified JDK. Sooner or later a swarm of lawyers would
appear.
Let's rename it to icedtea then.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list --
BTW, I noticed that despite java-17-openjdk being the default system
JDK on Fedora 36, it wasn't installed instead of java-11-openjdk when
I upgraded from Fedora 35. That sounds like the change proposal
wasn't
That sounds like super severe bug. I had tried it manytimes, in testing
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 15:40 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:17 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >
> > On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > Is this based on user requests, or is this only what you *think*
> > > users
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean - from above -
On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 09:34, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
> On 5/25/22 15:19, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 09:04, Jiri Vanek jva...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:38 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/25/22 15:28, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> I replied it already in
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:17 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
> On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > Is this based on user requests, or is this only what you *think* users
>
> I'm not sure what you mean - from above - what is based on mine/wider
> thinking
> Generally waht I wrote here it is
On 5/25/22 15:28, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
I replied it already in that thread, but happy to repeat:
It will help, but less then it seems so.
Now we can
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 15:03 +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
> On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > > I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this
> > > change, especially in its full sound of one static build repacked
>
On 5/25/22 15:19, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 09:04, Jiri Vanek mailto:jva...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >> I replied it already in that thread, but happy to repeat:
> >> It will help, but less then it seems so.
> >> Now we can drop 8. Soem
On 5/24/22 22:14, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
We are testing also upstream. note that RH is maintainer of ojdk 11 and 8,
so we have to. But that is much easier, as the usptream is static within
intree libraries. And we have to run also for
On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 09:04, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
> On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >> I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this
> change, especially in its full sound of one static build repacked to all
>
On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
I replied it already in that thread, but happy to repeat:
It will help, but less then it seems so.
Now we can drop 8. Soem legacy applciations will be unhappy, as EOL of jdk8 is
in some 4 years, so
On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this change,
especially in its full sound of one static build repacked to all ive fedoras,
but we have nto found a better way.
1. Stop doing
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
> We are testing also upstream. note that RH is maintainer of ojdk 11 and 8,
> so we have to. But that is much easier, as the usptream is static within
> intree libraries. And we have to run also for 17 and 18/19 as we need this
>
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> I replied it already in that thread, but happy to repeat:
> It will help, but less then it seems so.
> Now we can drop 8. Soem legacy applciations will be unhappy, as EOL of jdk8
> is in some 4 years, so fedora will suffer a bit. But it will be
On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this change,
especially in its full sound of one static build repacked to all ive
fedoras, but we have nto found a better way.
1. Stop doing TCK certification. Most Fedora OpenJDK users don't
On 5/24/22 18:37, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 24/05/2022 16:31, Jiri Vanek wrote:
The goal is to go as shim and cisco - to build in koji, certify, and repack.
shim and openh264 have a good reason for this - legal issues. OpenJDK doesn't.
Sorry, but I can't treat the laziness of the
On 5/24/22 10:57, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
> On 5/23/22 20:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> So, just replying here since this is a nice monster of a thread. ;(
>>
>> First, just to clear up some previous coments, shim does build against
>> the oldest stable Fedora in koji and then is manually tagged into
Once upon a time, Vitaly Zaitsev said:
> Sorry, but I can't treat the laziness of the
> maintainers as a good reason.
Can you PLEASE stop with the personal attacks?
--
Chris Adams
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On 24/05/2022 16:31, Jiri Vanek wrote:
The goal is to go as shim and cisco - to build in koji, certify, and repack.
shim and openh264 have a good reason for this - legal issues. OpenJDK
doesn't. Sorry, but I can't treat the laziness of the maintainers as a
good reason.
--
Sincerely,
On 5/21/22 13:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 7:28 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 5/20/22 14:57, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 20/05/2022 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote:
wait, what? What do you mean? And waht give you this impression?
On 5/23/22 20:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, just replying here since this is a nice monster of a thread. ;(
First, just to clear up some previous coments, shim does build against
the oldest stable Fedora in koji and then is manually tagged into newer
ones. This is not at all a good process. It
On 5/21/22 13:51, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 21/05/2022 13:22, Jiri Vanek wrote:
shim?
Built on Koji from sources as shim-unsigned, then uploaded to Microsoft for
signing.
This is a special legal case, just like openh264 and Cisco.
Both of them built from sources on Fedora infra.
Hi,
> Il giorno 10 mag 2022, alle ore 15:29, Ben Cotton ha
> scritto:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic
>
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community
So, just replying here since this is a nice monster of a thread. ;(
First, just to clear up some previous coments, shim does build against
the oldest stable Fedora in koji and then is manually tagged into newer
ones. This is not at all a good process. It only gets a bodhi update for
the one
On 21/05/2022 13:22, Jiri Vanek wrote:
shim?
Built on Koji from sources as shim-unsigned, then uploaded to Microsoft
for signing.
This is a special legal case, just like openh264 and Cisco.
Both of them built from sources on Fedora infra.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev
On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 7:28 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/20/22 14:57, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 20/05/2022 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >> wait, what? What do you mean? And waht give you this impression?
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs:
>
On 5/20/22 14:57, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 20/05/2022 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote:
wait, what? What do you mean? And waht give you this impression?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs:
> Make the normal rpms to not built jdk, but to repack the portable
On 5/20/22 14:57, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 20/05/2022 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote:
wait, what? What do you mean? And waht give you this impression?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs:
> Make the normal rpms to not built jdk, but to repack the portable
It is not so bad. and I definitely do not feel offended or even close to.
Many languages have very interesting words which go far beyond true/false
untrue/not false/ correct/incorrect right/left/lie
Thus saying many languages can not match to other langunages meaning of simple
true/false
On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 08:43, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 14:03, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > As writtten several times - this si not true. It will eb always source
> > codebuilt in koji.
>
> From
On 20/05/2022 14:33, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Who shold hire them. You? Me? Fedoraproject?
Red Hat.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 20/05/2022 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote:
wait, what? What do you mean? And waht give you this impression?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs:
> Make the normal rpms to not built jdk, but to repack the portable
rpms with all integration
Or are you already in the
On 20/05/2022 14:46, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Exactly. So, you implied malicious intent where there was none.
we don't know for sure.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list --
On Wednesday, 18 May 2022 at 17:18, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 17:04, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > It generally means and is interpreted as 'not true with the intention of
> > deceiving'. 'incorrect' is considered 'not true'.
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary gives the
On 5/18/22 18:34, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 18/05/2022 17:51, jiri vanek wrote:
You can not put uncertified JDK to fedora.
Why not?
And we can no longer properly support certified dynamic builds
Hire new maintainers who can.
Who shold hire them. You? Me? Fedoraproject?
--
On 5/18/22 18:36, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:33 PM jiri vanek wrote:
Hi Neal!
We are participating on Wakefield too. Why do you think JDK in feora should
miss it ?
It does nto metter if it is static or dynamic one, it will just run correctly
under wayaland. Or do I miss
On 5/18/22 18:32, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 18/05/2022 18:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
At this point, I'd rather have an OpenJDK in Fedora than not. If that
means switching to bundled libraries, then fine. But all bundled
libraries need to be documented in the spec file and that information
On 5/18/22 19:14, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Wed, May 18 2022 at 12:01:33 PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
At this point, I'd rather have an OpenJDK in Fedora than not.
I'll bite: why? Just so that it's easily available via RPM? It's starting to sound like Fedora would be providing very little
On 20/05/2022 14:03, Jiri Vanek wrote:
As writtten several times - this si not true. It will eb always source
codebuilt in koji.
From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs:
Make the normal rpms to not built jdk, but to repack the portable rpms with all
On 5/18/22 18:22, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 6:04 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:55 AM jiri vanek wrote:
You can imagine TCK as gigantic and pretty good testsuite, runing 24hours with
quite complicated setup. The pull and setup and run is completely
On 5/18/22 18:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:55 AM jiri vanek wrote:
You can imagine TCK as gigantic and pretty good testsuite, runing 24hours with
quite complicated setup. The pull and setup and run is completely autoamted,
but it is a lot of HW you need (all
Just to repeat i one more times, and maybe a bit more loudly - the rendering
seems to be SAME for both static and dynamic linking.
Please anybody who complains in this thread, can yo have any proof that
dynamic linking really makes yor eyes bleed??
J.
On 5/18/22 15:48, Mario Torre wrote:
On 5/18/22 13:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:28 PM jiri vanek wrote:
Once, long ago, we were the leader in the Linux Java ecosystem, but
ironically as Red Hat's influence in OpenJDK grew, investment in
Fedora dwindled.
That really is not true. But maybe we were
Btw, I know this because I fixed a gazillion font related bugs in
OpenJDK in the past, most of which in the OpenJDK 6 and 7 era, I
rarely ever had to touch 8 or later.
I make my own IntelliJ packages for my own use that rips out their
Java runtime and uses Fedora's OpenJDK. :)
Idea still
I don't think so. The entire Java ecosystem on Fedora was destroyed by Fedora
Modularity. Volunteers tried several times to revive it but failed due to
opposition.
I personally heavily agree:((( The modularity was great idea, but worst
implementation ever.
And for java it was indeed death
On 5/18/22 17:31, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:28 AM Peter Boy wrote:
Am 18.05.2022 um 16:36 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
:
On 18/05/2022 11:27, Peter Boy wrote:
We didn’t lost Eclipse, we switched from RPM to another distribution method.
The same with Netbeans.
On 5/18/22 14:40, Felix Schwarz wrote:
Am 18.05.22 um 11:27 schrieb Peter Boy:
We didn’t lost Eclipse, we switched from RPM to another distribution method.
Do you mean the Eclipse flatpak? I tried the flatpak but in the end went back
to upstream's plain binaries as the Flatpak does not
On 5/17/22 00:10, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 4:54 PM Andrew Hughes wrote:
Let me join the train of -1 votes. I consider this a step entirely in the
wrong direction. The JDK should be linked to system libraries wherever
possible just like our other packages. Language
On 5/19/22 01:00, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>> If Fedora legally cannot ship a version of OpenJDK that hasn’t
>> passed the TCK, but which is still compatible with the vast majority
>> of Java code, then OpenJDK isn’t free software and Fedora cannot
>> ship it at
Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> If Fedora legally cannot ship a version of OpenJDK that hasn’t
> passed the TCK, but which is still compatible with the vast majority
> of Java code, then OpenJDK isn’t free software and Fedora cannot
> ship it at all. Conversely, if OpenJDK is free software, then
On 18/05/2022 19:14, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Every bundled library needs a Provides, not only the ones that would be
affected by this change.
Yes. And maintainers must include and keep up to date this information
in SPECs:
All packages whose upstreams have no mechanism to build against
On 5/18/22 06:45, jiri vanek wrote:
>> Why did you give up?
>>
>
> I'm unable to enumerate number of bugs we solved, or even dropped as
> unsolvable due to dynamic nature of distribution-correct JDK.
Can you provide an example of an unsolvable one?
>> At one point AdoptOpenJDK distributed
On Wed, May 18 2022 at 12:01:33 PM -0400, Neal Gompa
wrote:
At this point, I'd rather have an OpenJDK in Fedora than not.
I'll bite: why? Just so that it's easily available via RPM? It's
starting to sound like Fedora would be providing very little value here
on top of what is offered by
On 18/05/2022 18:26, Simon Farnsworth wrote:
In English, "lie" means "a statement made by someone knowing it is not true".
It carries with it the idea that the person making the false statement knew it
was false, but claimed it was true anyway.
True, but we don't know for sure was it a mistake
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:33 PM jiri vanek wrote:
>
> Hi Neal!
>
> We are participating on Wakefield too. Why do you think JDK in feora should
> miss it ?
> It does nto metter if it is static or dynamic one, it will just run correctly
> under wayaland. Or do I miss something?
The runtime
On 18/05/2022 17:51, jiri vanek wrote:
You can not put uncertified JDK to fedora.
Why not?
And we can no longer properly support certified dynamic builds
Hire new maintainers who can.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
Hi Neal!
We are participating on Wakefield too. Why do you think JDK in feora should
miss it ?
It does nto metter if it is static or dynamic one, it will just run correctly
under wayaland. Or do I miss something?
___
devel mailing list --
On 18/05/2022 18:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
At this point, I'd rather have an OpenJDK in Fedora than not. If that
means switching to bundled libraries, then fine. But all bundled
libraries need to be documented in the spec file and that information
needs to be kept up to date.
They also want to
On 18/05/2022 17:28, Peter Boy wrote:
You neglect the reality.
RPM is still the main package format on Fedora.
One alternative installation source is flatpak, that is gaining approval among
more and more Fedora developers, and more and more are switching to it.
Do you mean a third-party
On Wednesday, 18 May 2022 15:41:17 BST Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 13:47, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
> > Then call it "incorrect". Saying it's a lie implies intent to mislead,
> > while there obviously was none.
>
>
> Saying "lie" means "not true".
>
In
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 6:04 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:55 AM jiri vanek wrote:
> >
> > You can imagine TCK as gigantic and pretty good testsuite, runing 24hours
> > with quite complicated setup. The pull and setup and run is completely
> > autoamted, but it is a lot
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:55 AM jiri vanek wrote:
>
> You can imagine TCK as gigantic and pretty good testsuite, runing 24hours
> with quite complicated setup. The pull and setup and run is completely
> autoamted, but it is a lot of HW you need (all architecures x all oses x all
> jdks). In
One one side it is good testsuite, on second something yo have to pass to
publish. So if users in fedora should have distribution-packed JDKs, someone
have to run (At least) them.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
You can imagine TCK as gigantic and pretty good testsuite, runing 24hours with
quite complicated setup. The pull and setup and run is completely autoamted,
but it is a lot of HW you need (all architecures x all oses x all jdks). In
adition, you need human power to keep with TCK evolution,
You can not put uncertified JDK to fedora. And we can no longer properly
support certified dynamic builds. We realy do no like this change, but we do
not see another way.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:28 AM Peter Boy wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 18.05.2022 um 16:36 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> > :
> >
> > On 18/05/2022 11:27, Peter Boy wrote:
> >> We didn’t lost Eclipse, we switched from RPM to another distribution
> >> method. The same with Netbeans.
> >
> > No RPMS
> Am 18.05.2022 um 16:36 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> :
>
> On 18/05/2022 11:27, Peter Boy wrote:
>> We didn’t lost Eclipse, we switched from RPM to another distribution method.
>> The same with Netbeans.
>
> No RPMS in Fedora repositories => Fedora lost them.
You neglect the reality.
On 18/05/2022 17:04, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
It generally means and is interpreted as 'not true with the intention of
deceiving'. 'incorrect' is considered 'not true'.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following answer:
lie (noun) - an intentionally false statement
used with reference to
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
