On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Damian Krzeminski wrote: > Marden P. Marshall wrote: >> On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Dale Worley wrote: >> >>> I'd like to get Java compatibility straightened out. >>> >>> The currently built RPMs have a 'require' for Java version >= 1.6. >>> The >>> currently distributed RPM set contains such a Java RPM. >>> >>> However, this could force a Java upgrade on some users, as earlier >>> versions of sipX only require Java version >= 1.5. >>> >>> I looked at the discussions of this issue on sipx-dev. The last >>> thread >>> I found starts at >>> http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/msg12614.html One or >>> two >>> people suggested we push users to upgrade to Java 1.6. Damien noted >>> that we previously stated on sipx-dev >>> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.voip.sipx.devel/9437) that >>> there >>> would be one more version ("3.12", now called 4.0) that would be >>> compatible with 1.5. There seemed to be no compelling reasons not >>> to >>> follow this path, and that pretty much ended the discussion. >>> >>> So we are now in a state where the code is not compatible with the >>> discussions on sipx-dev. I'd like to get this conflict resolved. >>> >>> Opinions? >>> >>> Dale >>> >>> >> >> Why do you believe that there is a conflict? Our code will compile >> and run perfectly well on J5. As for the RPM's requiring J6, that is >> a totally different matter. Since 4.0 will ship with J6, the PRM's >> call out that version. This will ensure that consistency will be >> maintained in regards to JVM versions regardless of wether or not the >> installation was a clean install or an upgrade. >> >> -Mardy >> > > I really do not understand the consistency argument: what if someone > installs 1.7? > I think RPMs should require the lowest version that is actually > required - > in this case 1.5. > D. > > D.
The vast majority of the supported customers are not going to be installing their own copies of Java, but instead rely on what we have supplied, either from our installation CD's or yum repositories. And since both of those sources supply J6, I believe that is what we should be calling for. I understand that in this particular situation the RPM Requires directive is not being used in strict conformance with its defined purpose, but instead is being used in an effort to maintain consistency. Whether or not you believe there is any value in having version parity amongst supported installations, I can see no downside in attempting to do so. -Mardy _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
