On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 15:05 -0700, Bruno Mahé wrote: > On 08/29/2011 12:05 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > > So Roman opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-29, but > we > > should probably have a discussion about this before we go ahead. Due > to the > > special sort of hell that is Java packages on Linux, having an > actual > > dependency (either build-time or install-time) on Java can be a > giant pain. > > I'm running into this right now trying to get the Jenkins build > working on a > > CentOS 6 box. Roman's proposing we just assume that a viable JDK/JRE > is > > already installed and in the path. That's not perfect packaging, > sure, but > > it's a hell of a lot simpler for us. What are people's thoughts? > > > > A. > > > > As long as it makes my life easier with openJDK, I am fine. > > It may also be a good idea to remove that dependency given all the > uncertainty around it: > http://sylvestre.ledru.info/blog/sylvestre/2011/08/26/sun_java6_packages_removed_from_debian_u >
As sun-java6-* looks likes its going to disappear from both Ubuntu and Debian (and maybe other Distros) it would definitely make sense to remove that dependency as it won't be installable (unless Oracle does a u-turn - you never know...). One of the reasons cited is the maturity of OpenJDK - all of the packaging work I do in Debian and Ubuntu uses 'default-jdk' which maps to OpenJDK and I don't see much in the may of issues. Maybe we should have a long-term target of building using OpenJDK instead which would allow package dependencies to be re-introduced? It would require working with the projects we integrate to identify what does not work and get patches applied (I will likely be working in this area anyway). -- James Page Ubuntu Server Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
