https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693987
--- Comment #13 from Severin Gehwolf <sgehw...@redhat.com> --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #11) > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #8) > > One more idea to consult with java sig: > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-12-openjdk-12.0.0.33-3.rolling.fc29.x86_64/ > > > > Maybe change the suffix to latest or sts? From those two I would vote > > latest, But only for consistency. From those three, I like rolling the most. > > We should consider installing to this location instead. This should avoid > the clash too when "latest == packaged LTS": > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-latest-openjdk-<VERSION>-<RELEASE>.<ARCH> Let me explain why I think this would be a good idea: - It avoids the installation clash when LTS == latest (last cycle with JDK 11) - It allows for easier "reinstall breaks alternatives fix". See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200302#c67 So, Jiri, you disagree. What are your arguments against it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
