Re: [HEADS-UP] OpenJDK 11 is now the default Java in rawhide
* Adam Williamson [2020-07-24 00:52]: > On July 23, 2020 6:17:04 p.m. PDT, Deepak Bhole wrote: > >* Adam Williamson [2020-07-23 20:57]: > >> On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 12:02 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: [ ... ] > > > >I could of-course misunderstanding the issue but is there a reason that > >you > >believe this is JDK related? > > > >Deepak > > > >> Merging the side tag with FreeIPA known broken was arguable enough, > >but > >> merging it with a release-blocking package broken seems worse. Please > >> try not to do this in future. [ ... ] > > The specific compile error isn't really relevant, the problem is that we need > a new LO because the deps of the existing build cannot be satisfied. However, > now I look closer, I think I was wrong to blame java for the deps changing, I > apologize for that - the timing lined up, and there was an LO build failure > in the java side tag like I mentioned, so I figured the new java was the > issue based on that, but it actually seems to be coincidental. It looks like > the dep that changed was actually poppler - a new build of poppler was done > two weeks ago but I guess was only tagged to f33 recently. Ah okay, thanks for clarifying, I was unaware of the additional dep issue. Deepak > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [HEADS-UP] OpenJDK 11 is now the default Java in rawhide
* Adam Williamson [2020-07-23 20:57]: > On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 12:02 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > (Sending this heads-up in a new thread for better visibility.) > > > > Yesterday the f33-java11 side tag was merged into rawhide, which > > brings the necessary changes to make java-11-openjdk the default Java > > in fedora. All packages depending on Java should also have been > > rebuilt in this side tag. > > > > The "new" Java SIG (@java-maint-sig) is still dealing with a pretty > > small amount of fallout from this change. For example, some packages > > that are stuck on Java 8 for various reasons are failing to compile or > > run because their dependencies have been built with bytecode that is > > too new for OpenJDK 8. > > Well. I don't think "pretty small" is really accurate. libreoffice > failed build in the side tag: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1540582 > > and, unsurprisingly, has again failed to rebuild since the side tag was > merged: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1541384 > > libreoffice is part of our release-blocking package set. So now Rawhide > composes are failing because a release blocking image cannot be built > because libreoffice cannot be installed. > Not trying to downplay your concern about FreeIPA or other components but neither of the errors above appear related to the JDK change. Both are errors when building vcldemo.o which is being built with g++ and segfaulting during build: --- [ ... ] [build CXX] vcl/workben/vcldemo.cxx S=/builddir/build/BUILD/libreoffice-6.4.5.2 && I=$S/instdir && W=$S/workdir && mkdir -p $W/CxxObject/vcl/workben/ $W/Dep/CxxObject/vcl/workben/ && cd /builddir/build/BUILD/libreoffice-6.4.5.2 &&g++ -DBOOST_ERROR_CODE_HEADER_ONLY -DBOOST_SYSTEM_NO_DEPRECATED -DCPPU_ENV=gcc3 -DLINUX -DNDEBUG -DOSL_DEBUG_LEVEL=0 -DUNIX -DUNX -DX86_64 -D_PTHREADS -D_REENTRANT -fvisibility=hidden-Wall -Wno-missing-braces -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wundef -Wunreachable-code -Wunused-macros -finput-charset=UTF-8 -fmessage-length=0 -fno-common -pipe -fstack-protector-strong -Wduplicated-cond -Wlogical-op -Wshift-overflow=2 -Wunused-const-variable=1 -Wno-cast-function-type -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fPIC -Wshadow -Woverloaded-virtual -std=c++17 -pthread -O2 -flto -ffat-lto-objects -g -grecord-gcc-switches -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -DEXCEPTIONS_ON -fexceptions -fno-enforce-eh-specs -DLIBO_INTERNAL_ONLY -c $S/vcl/workben/vcldemo.cxx -o $W/CxxObject/vcl/workben/vcldemo.o -I$S/include -I/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-11.0.8.10-0.fc33.x86_64/include -I/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-11.0.8.10-0.fc33.x86_64/include/linux -I$S/config_host -I$W/UnoApiHeadersTarget/offapi/normal -I$W/UnoApiHeadersTarget/udkapi/normal -I/usr/include -isystem /usr/include/harfbuzz -isystem /usr/include/glib-2.0 -isystem /usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include -isystem /usr/include/freetype2 -isystem /usr/include/libpng16 -I$S/vcl/inc [ ... ] /builddir/build/BUILD/libreoffice-6.4.5.2/vcl/workben/vcldemo.cxx: In destructor 'virtual DemoWin::RenderThread::~RenderThread()': /builddir/build/BUILD/libreoffice-6.4.5.2/vcl/workben/vcldemo.cxx:1733:18: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault 1733 | join(); [ ... ] make[1]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/libreoffice-6.4.5.2/solenv/gbuild/LinkTarget.mk:296: /builddir/build/BUILD/libreoffice-6.4.5.2/workdir/CxxObject/vcl/workben/vcldemo.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs [ ... ] --- I could of-course misunderstanding the issue but is there a reason that you believe this is JDK related? Deepak > Merging the side tag with FreeIPA known broken was arguable enough, but > merging it with a release-blocking package broken seems worse. Please > try not to do this in future. > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Arc
Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora
* Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 10:12]: > On 02/24/2015 04:06 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > * Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 09:58]: > >> On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote: > >>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 > >>> 09:29]: > >>>> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote: > >>>>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 > >>>>> 09:04]: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote: > >>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>> There were several attempts in past like "can you please support jdk > >>>>>>> 7,6...in newer fedoras" and we always told no. When come speech about > >>>>>>> "do it > >>>>>>> on your own" suddenly many questions marks raised up. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The last open bug is: > >>>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190137 > >>>>>>> the guy is willing to maintain it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Fine, so let him do it and drop the Obsoletes: tag in > >>>>>> java-1.8.0-openjdk > >>>>>> and its successors. You shouldn't arbitrarily block people from > >>>>>> re-introducing an older branch of any package back into Fedora in the > >>>>>> first place. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We have no intention of blocking it. The reason for proposing these > >>>>> restrictions is that the Fedora Java stack will not work with older > >>>>> JDKs, therefore we need to make sure that it goes not get installed on > >>>>> the system unless explicitly requested by someone who knows what they > >>>>> are doing. > >>>> > >>>> Well, you do that by adding/updating (Build)Requires: in the packages > >>>> which won't work otherwise, not by adding Obsoletes:. > >>>> > >>> > >>> That would generally work for most packages, but there is a new JDK > >>> released every 2 years. This means that we would have to change the BR > >>> and Requires for the entire Java stack (100s and 100s of packages) every > >>> 2 years, which is non-trivial. > >> > >> First, we have versioned auto-requires generated during package build. > >> Explicit requires on java aren't usually needed. If package requires > >> "java > 1:1.7" then it is correct - the package can be assumed to work > >> with older JDK. > >> > > > > While that is true in terms of source compatibility, it will work only > > if it is compiled with the older JDK. > > > >> Secondly, it is fairly easy to add requires on "java-devel >= 1:1.8" to > >> packages related to build systems like ant, maven or gradle. This would > >> cover most cases of building Java packages using latest JDK. > >> > > > > As you stated, it will cover most cases, but not all. More critically, > > this does not solve the issue with requirement of 'java' itself. > > These few remaining cases can be easily handled by provenpackager as > mass-change. > > Also, my proposal of introducing "java" metapackage (see my other post > in this thread), which would always require the latest JDK, solves this > problem in a different way, without modifying ordinary Java packages at all. > Ah, I had missed that. Yes, the metapackage solution should work to the same effect. I don't know if we can just call it 'java' though, unless you are proposing that 'java' provision be removed from current openjdk packages? Deepak > -- > Mikolaj Izdebski > Software Engineer, Red Hat > IRC: mizdebsk > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora
* Mikolaj Izdebski [2015-02-24 09:58]: > On 02/24/2015 03:32 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 > > 09:29]: > >> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote: > >>> * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 > >>> 09:04]: > >>>> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>>> There were several attempts in past like "can you please support jdk > >>>>> 7,6...in newer fedoras" and we always told no. When come speech about > >>>>> "do it > >>>>> on your own" suddenly many questions marks raised up. > >>>>> > >>>>> The last open bug is: > >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190137 > >>>>> the guy is willing to maintain it. > >>>> > >>>> Fine, so let him do it and drop the Obsoletes: tag in java-1.8.0-openjdk > >>>> and its successors. You shouldn't arbitrarily block people from > >>>> re-introducing an older branch of any package back into Fedora in the > >>>> first place. > >>>> > >>> > >>> We have no intention of blocking it. The reason for proposing these > >>> restrictions is that the Fedora Java stack will not work with older > >>> JDKs, therefore we need to make sure that it goes not get installed on > >>> the system unless explicitly requested by someone who knows what they > >>> are doing. > >> > >> Well, you do that by adding/updating (Build)Requires: in the packages > >> which won't work otherwise, not by adding Obsoletes:. > >> > > > > That would generally work for most packages, but there is a new JDK > > released every 2 years. This means that we would have to change the BR > > and Requires for the entire Java stack (100s and 100s of packages) every > > 2 years, which is non-trivial. > > First, we have versioned auto-requires generated during package build. > Explicit requires on java aren't usually needed. If package requires > "java > 1:1.7" then it is correct - the package can be assumed to work > with older JDK. > While that is true in terms of source compatibility, it will work only if it is compiled with the older JDK. > Secondly, it is fairly easy to add requires on "java-devel >= 1:1.8" to > packages related to build systems like ant, maven or gradle. This would > cover most cases of building Java packages using latest JDK. > As you stated, it will cover most cases, but not all. More critically, this does not solve the issue with requirement of 'java' itself. Deepak > -- > Mikolaj Izdebski > Software Engineer, Red Hat > IRC: mizdebsk > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora
* Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 09:29]: > On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 15:09, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > * Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 > > 09:04]: > > > On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote: > > > [...] > > > > There were several attempts in past like "can you please support jdk > > > > 7,6...in newer fedoras" and we always told no. When come speech about > > > > "do it > > > > on your own" suddenly many questions marks raised up. > > > > > > > > The last open bug is: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190137 > > > > the guy is willing to maintain it. > > > > > > Fine, so let him do it and drop the Obsoletes: tag in java-1.8.0-openjdk > > > and its successors. You shouldn't arbitrarily block people from > > > re-introducing an older branch of any package back into Fedora in the > > > first place. > > > > > > > We have no intention of blocking it. The reason for proposing these > > restrictions is that the Fedora Java stack will not work with older > > JDKs, therefore we need to make sure that it goes not get installed on > > the system unless explicitly requested by someone who knows what they > > are doing. > > Well, you do that by adding/updating (Build)Requires: in the packages > which won't work otherwise, not by adding Obsoletes:. > That would generally work for most packages, but there is a new JDK released every 2 years. This means that we would have to change the BR and Requires for the entire Java stack (100s and 100s of packages) every 2 years, which is non-trivial. Deepak > Regards, > -- > Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann > RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org > "Faith manages." > -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora
* Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [2015-02-24 09:04]: > On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote: > [...] > > There were several attempts in past like "can you please support jdk > > 7,6...in newer fedoras" and we always told no. When come speech about "do it > > on your own" suddenly many questions marks raised up. > > > > The last open bug is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190137 > > the guy is willing to maintain it. > > Fine, so let him do it and drop the Obsoletes: tag in java-1.8.0-openjdk > and its successors. You shouldn't arbitrarily block people from > re-introducing an older branch of any package back into Fedora in the > first place. > We have no intention of blocking it. The reason for proposing these restrictions is that the Fedora Java stack will not work with older JDKs, therefore we need to make sure that it goes not get installed on the system unless explicitly requested by someone who knows what they are doing. Deepak > Regards, > Dominik > -- > Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann > RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org > "Faith manages." > -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Orphaning java-1.5.0-gcj
* Andrew Haley [2014-04-07 13:29]: > On 04/07/2014 03:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> There have been a few discussions about this in the past but no action. > >> With feature freeze approaching for F21, I think this is a good time to > >> address this. > >> > >> I will be orphaning java-1.5.0-gcj in Fedora on April 8th. If anyone > >> wants to take over, please let me know. Please do keep in mind though > >> that we really should just remove GCJ (despite the effect it will have > >> on pdftk) as preferred by one of the primary authors of it (Andrew > >> Haley): > > > > How does this affect the bring up of new architectures, I seem to > > remember when doing the various variants of ARM we needed this for > > bringup of the newer releases, is that still the case or is there > > other means of achieving that? > > As of JDK8, OpenJDK can be cross-compiled. Not before time, either. > Ownership released, package retired in rawhide. I accidentally hit retire on F20 as well. I'll get that addressed, as we will support it for the length for F19/20. Deepak > Andrew. > > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Orphaning java-1.5.0-gcj
Hi, There have been a few discussions about this in the past but no action. With feature freeze approaching for F21, I think this is a good time to address this. I will be orphaning java-1.5.0-gcj in Fedora on April 8th. If anyone wants to take over, please let me know. Please do keep in mind though that we really should just remove GCJ (despite the effect it will have on pdftk) as preferred by one of the primary authors of it (Andrew Haley): https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/196535.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/196895.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/197157.html Deepak -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8
* Aleksandar Kurtakov [2014-03-26 09:41]: > I'm not proposing having OpenJDK7 in Fedora 21. What I'm asking for is to > have them both for a month or two before obsoleting so transition can be > smoother if problems appear. > Ah okay, fair enough. I don't think that should be an issue; although we will have to make it so that OpenJDK7 does not provide java/java-devel so that it no longer gets pulled in by default when building. Is that OK? Deepak > Alexander Kurtakov > Red Hat Eclipse team > > - Original Message - > > From: "Deepak Bhole" > > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:31:59 PM > > Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8 > > > > * Christopher [2014-03-25 19:59]: > > > I also would like to see 1.7.0 stick around for awhile. Not > > > necessarily as the default, but at least available in the repos. As it > > > stands, it's difficult to use a modern Fedora on projects that are > > > still developing against JDK 1.6. > > > > > > > Unfortunately, OpenJDK7 will be EOLd in April 2015[1], which is within > > the support time-frame of the F21. This is one the reasons why we would > > like to be able to switch over to OpenJDK8 asap for F21. > > > > 1: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html > > > > Deepak > > > > > -- > > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov > > > wrote: > > > > Please keep java 1.7.0 around for some time. It would make moving easier > > > > if we have to jump back for a build or two. > > > > > > > > Alexander Kurtakov > > > > Red Hat Eclipse team > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > >> From: "Omair Majid" > > > >> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > > >> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:07:39 PM > > > >> Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8 > > > >> > > > >> * Mikolaj Izdebski [2014-03-24 11:55]: > > > >> > That's exactly the problem. We need to use a modified version of > > > >> > java-1.8.0-openjdk with extra provides and adjusted priorities for > > > >> > alternatives. > > > >> > > > >> I have started a new java-1.8.0-openjdk build that should fix this: > > > >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=506921 > > > >> > > > >> > Blocking java-1.7.0-oepnjdk may also be required. This > > > >> > makes it impossible to scratch-build Java packages using f21-build > > > >> > target in current state. > > > >> > > > >> Is there anything I can/should do here? Shall I file a rel-eng ticket > > > >> to > > > >> block java-1.7.0-openjdk? Would it be worth waiting a little while to > > > >> ensure that there are no show-stopper bugs in java-1.8.0-openjdk? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Omair > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) > > > >> Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681 > > > >> -- > > > >> devel mailing list > > > >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > >> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > > > > -- > > > > devel mailing list > > > > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > > > -- > > > devel mailing list > > > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > > -- > > devel mailing list > > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8
* Christopher [2014-03-25 19:59]: > I also would like to see 1.7.0 stick around for awhile. Not > necessarily as the default, but at least available in the repos. As it > stands, it's difficult to use a modern Fedora on projects that are > still developing against JDK 1.6. > Unfortunately, OpenJDK7 will be EOLd in April 2015[1], which is within the support time-frame of the F21. This is one the reasons why we would like to be able to switch over to OpenJDK8 asap for F21. 1: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html Deepak > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov > wrote: > > Please keep java 1.7.0 around for some time. It would make moving easier if > > we have to jump back for a build or two. > > > > Alexander Kurtakov > > Red Hat Eclipse team > > > > - Original Message - > >> From: "Omair Majid" > >> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:07:39 PM > >> Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8 > >> > >> * Mikolaj Izdebski [2014-03-24 11:55]: > >> > That's exactly the problem. We need to use a modified version of > >> > java-1.8.0-openjdk with extra provides and adjusted priorities for > >> > alternatives. > >> > >> I have started a new java-1.8.0-openjdk build that should fix this: > >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=506921 > >> > >> > Blocking java-1.7.0-oepnjdk may also be required. This > >> > makes it impossible to scratch-build Java packages using f21-build > >> > target in current state. > >> > >> Is there anything I can/should do here? Shall I file a rel-eng ticket to > >> block java-1.7.0-openjdk? Would it be worth waiting a little while to > >> ensure that there are no show-stopper bugs in java-1.8.0-openjdk? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Omair > >> > >> -- > >> PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) > >> Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681 > >> -- > >> devel mailing list > >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > > -- > > devel mailing list > > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
* Stanislav Ochotnicky [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 > > 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 maintainers supposed to determine if our packages > > require full java, or just java-headless? "Needs X or audio" is too > > vague. Is there a list of packages and/or classes that are present in > > full java but not in java-headless? Or some kind of explicit set of > > guidelines I can use to examine my packages to see which they need? > > 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. > Another possible resource is checking the Debian package repo -- they have had headless/full separated for a while (maybe even from the start?): e.g. Azureus needs full: http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/azureus and ant needs headless: http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/ant Of course it is no guarantee that Debian is perfect -- if we find any known issues, we can report back accordingly to help improve their set up too. Deepak > > [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/headless-136834.html > > > -- > Stanislav Ochotnicky > Software Engineer - Developer Experience > > PGP: 7B087241 > Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19
* Rahul Sundaram [2013-06-17 15:42]: > Hi > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Dan Mashal wrote: > > > > There is no way in hell anyone here is going to fix the security holes > in Java (open or closed). > > The only way to avoid the security holes caused by java is to not use it. > > > That is too extreme. It is certainly possible to fix security issues in > IcedTea and OpenJDK. Otherwise Fedora wouldn't be including it in the > distribution and building a lot of packages using openJDK. If we don't > include IcedTea by default and there are future security issues, it still > needs > to be fixed but the chances of it affecting users are reduced however we > might > be creating problems for users who are relying on IcedTea-Web to do their > banking or other critical tasks and IcedTea-Web is not easily installable via > the Firefox plugin search and it is a entirely un-obvious name for users to > install using the package manager. Not a lot of people understand that Java > applet source was never open sourced by Sun or Oracle and is not part of the > OpenJDK project. If we can fix Firefox to install IcedTea on demand, that > would be great. > +1 to fixing Firefox if we must stop it from being installed by default. As archaic as applets may be, they are still used in critical applications such as for banking/trading/etc. and I think it should always be possible for users to easily find it/install it if it is not already done by default. FWIW, Oracle has been taking JVM security very seriously lately -- we do security releases on OpenJDK in Fedora and over the past few months, we have seen a significant rise (past avg*3+) in the number of issues fixed and also a significant rise in code hardening. Cheers, Deepak > Rahul > > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Java 8
* Stephen Gallagher [2013-01-23 15:22]: > On Wed 23 Jan 2013 02:53:30 PM EST, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > = Features/Java8TechPreview = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Java8TechPreview > > > > Feature owner(s): Deepak Bhole > > > > Add a tech preview preview of the the upcoming version of Java (OpenJDK8) to > > Fedora 19. > > > > == Detailed description == > > The current Java implementation in Fedora comes from OpenJDK. > > > > Java 8 (and OpenJDK8) are tentatively scheduled for release in September > > 2013. > > Fedora 19 will most likely be out just a few months before that, and is > > therefore positioned to receive a tech preview version of the latest > > OpenJDK8 > > candidates. > > > Given that it's not expected to be in final release for Fedora 19, can > we please ensure that we're talking about a parallel-installable > version alongside OpenJDK 7 (and that Java packages for Fedora are kept > compiled with OpenJDK 7 unless it is impossible to do so)? > Hi Stephen, Not sure what you mean by "Given that it's not expected to be in final release for Fedora 19" -- unless that was a typo and you meant that the final version of OpenJDK8 is not expected to be in Fedora 19 ... in case of latter, that holds true for GA. However OpenJDK8 final is expected to be out in September and we will likely upgrade to it in F19 when it is out. As for it being parallel-installable, yes, that is definitely what we will be doing. We will do exactly what we did with Fedora 16, whereby OpenJDK6 and OpenJDK7 were installable in parallel. All packages in F16 were built with OpenJDK6 and similarly, everything in F19 will be built with OpenJDK7. OpenJDK8 will be completely optional and nothing will depend on it in F19. We will not consider making OpenJDK8 the default at least until Fedora 20. Cheers, Deepak > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: java-1.7.0-openjdk provided items
* Jos Vos [2012-08-10 14:08]: > Hi, > > Is there a reason why the RHEL 6.3 and F17 java-1.7.0-openjdk packages > provide many items with a different name, i.e. starting with "java7" > and "java", respectively. > > RHEL 6.3 java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1.7.0.5-2.2.1.el6_3.x86_64.rpm: > > java7-1.7.0-devel = 1:1.7.0.5 > java7-devel = 1:1.7.0 > java7-devel-openjdk = 1:1.7.0.5 > java7-sdk = 1:1.7.0 > java7-sdk-1.7.0 = 1:1.7.0.5 > java7-sdk-1.7.0-openjdk = 1:1.7.0.5 > java7-sdk-openjdk = 1:1.7.0.5 > lib.so()(64bit) > lib.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) > libunpack.so()(64bit) > libunpack.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) > java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel = 1:1.7.0.5-2.2.1.el6_3 > java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel(x86-64) = 1:1.7.0.5-2.2.1.el6_3 > Hi, This is because in RHEL-6.3 Java 6 is still the default JVM. The different virtual provides ensure that Java 7 is not accidentally pulled in by yum to satisfy 'java' either during buildtime or during install time. Cheers, Deepak > F17 java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1.7.0.5-2.2.1.fc17.9.x86_64.rpm: > > java-1.7.0-devel = 1:1.7.0.5 > java-devel = 1:1.7.0 > java-devel-openjdk = 1:1.7.0.5 > java-sdk = 1:1.7.0 > java-sdk-1.7.0 = 1:1.7.0.5 > java-sdk-1.7.0-openjdk = 1:1.7.0.5 > java-sdk-openjdk = 1:1.7.0.5 > lib.so()(64bit) > lib.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) > libunpack.so()(64bit) > libunpack.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) > java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel = 1:1.7.0.5-2.2.1.fc17.9 > java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel(x86-64) = 1:1.7.0.5-2.2.1.fc17.9 > > -- > --Jos Vos > --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 > --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Fax: +31 20 6948204 > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Canonical Will Remove Java From Ubuntu
* Paul Howarth [2011-12-22 05:41]: > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:17:15 + > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > On 12/21/2011 10:45 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: > > > On 21.12.2011 18:52, Andrew Haley wrote: > > >> There really is very little difference between the com.sun.* > > >> classes in OpenJDK and the proprietary JDK, as far as I know. Of > > >> course, I haven't really checked, but... ;-) > > > > > > So, what is the root cause of (infrequent, but persistent) alarms > > > about incompatibility between OpenJDK and proprietary JDK? > > > > To know for certain I'd have to trawl all the bug reports, but they > > seem to boil down to web plugin incompatibilities and assuming a > > particular layout of the installation. With regard to the plugin, > > it's much more compatible now, but we still have occasional problems > > with proprietary applications that make incorrect assumptions. It's > > particularly difficult with banks that have applications we can't even > > try. Oh, and we do have bugs sometimes. ;-) > > At $WORKPLACE I use a Java app (via javaws) - EMC NetWorker Management > Console - that won't work with OpenJDK (it pops up a username/password > window as expected but doesn't then pop up the main app window once the > username+password have been entered), whilst it does work with > Sun/Oracle java 6 and 7. I would much rather use OpenJDK but I haven't > a clue how to track down what the problem is, knowing next to nothing > about java. > Hi Paul, Is there a bug open for this? Deepak > Paul. > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide java versioning issue?
* Sérgio Basto [2011-11-29 14:39]:
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 09:02 -0500, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > Java 7 needs to become the default JDK for rawhide. We will start working
> > on this over the coming few days. Until done, Java stuff might be broken
> > here and there.
>
> yeah new Java breaks build of VirtualBox-4.1.6 (from rpmfusion)
>
> I got this error
> warning: [options] bootstrap class path not set in conjunction with
> -source 1.5
> /builddir/build/BUILD/VirtualBox-4.1.6_OSE/obj/obj/vboxjxpcom-gen/jxpcomgen/java/glue/Helper.java:123:
> error: name clash: unwrap(List) and unwrap(List) have the
> same erasure
> public static int[] unwrap(List vals)
> {
>
> ^
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/VirtualBox-4.1.6_OSE/obj/obj/vboxjxpcom-gen/jxpcomgen/java/glue/Helper.java:135:
> error: name clash: unwrap(List) and unwrap(List) have the same
> erasure
> public static long[] unwrap(List vals) {
>
> > As a workaround, you can manually install java-1.7.0-openjdk{,-devel}
> > and it should be fine.
>
> the build is with mock , I don't understand your suggestion .
> Can we use java 1.6 or java 1.6 is in repo of rawhide ?
>
I am surprised the above code builds with 6. It shouldn't.
Java erases types when writing bytecode:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/generics/erasure.html
Essentially, the above code is wrong based on Java's implementation
because the bytecode is ending up 2 unwrap methods that both take
"List".
I would suggest fixing the code to change the method names. It may be
working at runtime with 6 for now, but can break any time.
Cheers,
Deepak
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide java versioning issue?
* David Airlie [2011-11-29 05:36]:
> so I was trying to fix xorg-x11-docs, which uses fop which uses java, which
> means I've no idea.
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3549524
>
> The main error is below so I suspect the problem is that some apache/avalon
> framework jar file is build with the 1.7 jdk but the buildroot installed the
> 1.6 jdk. Should something have its dependency bumped?
>
Hi David,
Java 7 needs to become the default JDK for rawhide. We will start working
on this over the coming few days. Until done, Java stuff might be broken
here and there.
As a workaround, you can manually install java-1.7.0-openjdk{,-devel}
and it should be fine.
Cheers,
Deepak
> Dave.
>
> usr/bin/xmlto: line 316: local: can only be used in a function
> GENfonts.ps
> /usr/bin/xmlto: line 316: local: can only be used in a function
> Making portrait pages on A4 paper (210mmx297mm)
> java virtual machine used: /usr/lib/jvm/jre/bin/java
> classpath used:
> /usr/share/java/commons-io.jar:/usr/share/java/batik-all.jar:/usr/share/java/avalon-framework-api.jar:/usr/share/java/avalon-framework-impl.jar:/usr/share/java/xmlgraphics-commons.jar:/usr/share/java/commons-logging.jar:/usr/share/java/fop.jar:
> main class used: org.apache.fop.cli.Main
> flags used:
> options used:
> arguments used: -fo /tmp/xmlto.1D9adG/fonts.proc -ps
> /builddir/build/BUILD/xorg-docs-1.6/general/fonts/fonts.ps
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError:
> org/apache/avalon/framework/configuration/ConfigurationException :
> Unsupported major.minor version 51.0
> at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method)
> at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:634)
> at
> java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:142)
> at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:277)
> at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$000(URLClassLoader.java:73)
> at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:212)
> at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
> at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:205)
> at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:321)
> at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:294)
> at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:266)
> at org.apache.fop.apps.FopFactory.(FopFactory.java:153)
> at org.apache.fop.apps.FopFactory.newInstance(FopFactory.java:177)
> at
> org.apache.fop.cli.CommandLineOptions.(CommandLineOptions.java:121)
> at org.apache.fop.cli.Main.startFOP(Main.java:157)
> at org.apache.fop.cli.Main.main(Main.java:204)
> make[2]: *** [fonts.ps] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/xorg-docs-1.6/general/fonts'
> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/xorg-docs-1.6/general'
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Bug in javac ?
* Christoph Höger [2011-10-31 11:37]:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am really unsure here, if this is a javac bug, or an eclipse glitch
> or something plain strange. Consider the following interfaces:
>
> public interface A {
> A foo();
> }
>
> public interface B {
> B foo();
> }
>
> public interface C extends A, B {
> @Override
> C foo();
> }
>
> Eclipse _does_ compile those interfaces. If you comment out C foo(),
> it (rightfully IMO) complains.
> javac does _not_ compile those interfaces and (IMO erroneously)
> complains about incompatible super interfaces.
>
> Any ideas who is wrong?
>
It looks like a known bug in the 6 compiler related to interface
inheritance and covariant return types. I think this is the commit
that fixed it in 7:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/langtools/rev/4a3b9801f7a0
If you have code that resembles the above and would like to see the fix
backported to 6, please feel free to open a bug.
Cheers,
Deepak
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
* Toshio Kuratomi [2011-08-26 11:58]: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:29:33AM -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > > > Andrew Haley and I just had a chat about this. > > > > We both agree that weaning off the 1.6 dependency is the best long-term > > solution. We essentially want it so that nothing in Fedora needs 1.6. > > > > That said, we will continue to ship 1.6 since 3rd party apps may need > > it. We will however remove the alternatives for 1.6, so using them will > > require the user to manually set JAVA_HOME to > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0/ and call the java binary from that dir. > > This will prevent someone from accidentally switching the system > > alterne ative to 1.6 and having (1.7 built) apps fail. > > > Look into environment-modules as a possible aid to the end user : > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:EnvironmentModules > > I've always wondered why we used alternatives for java when it seems like > it's a per user or per application setting rather than a per-host setting > anyway. > With Fedora, we currently only distribute GCJ and OpenJDK6, and OpenJDK6 is fully capable of running everything GCJ can (on supported archs), so there is no situation where one app needs one and another needs the other. Introduction of 1.7 is the first such case where this may hold true. And even then, we would like the overlap to be as little as possible and switch over to Java 7 completely. Frankly, there is little if any need for alternatives for java in Fedora given that there is only OpenJDK. However we keep it in case users want to install 3rd party JDKs/JREs via the jpackage-wrapper RPM. > > > Are there any major objections to the above? > > > Yeah, I'm with Peter Robinson that this change is coming too late in the > cycle. Alpha has already shipped. FESCo could disagree but it *must* go to > FESCo for them to give you permission. > Oh definitely. I intend to get FESCo approval before making the change. I just wanted to see if there were any objections here first.. > > In the mean time, I am going to start building all java packages > > currently in F16 against 1.7 only to see the scope of changes that will > > be needed. > > to east > > > Do you need a separate build tag setup so you can do this testing without > disturbing normal builds? > I am just using mock. Since it is just to test if Java 7 can build it, I was going to install all BRs of packages that need java to build, and then just build them one after another. It might be faster this way than doing individual builds given the # of packages. I will let you know if anything changes and I do need the tag though. Thanks for the offer! Cheers, Deepak > -Toshio -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
* Deepak Bhole [2011-08-26 10:46]: > * Andy Grimm [2011-08-26 10:18]: > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > > * Douglas Myers–Turnbull [2011-07-25 20:53]: > > >> > I was planning to do this myself .. glad you started it :) I can take > > >> > over the Feature and doing all the work if you're fine with it... > > >> > > >> Please do! > > >> > > >> The only work I've done (literally) is on the feature page, but feel > > >> free let me know if you need anything from me. > > >> > > > > > > Hi Douglas, > > > > > > Thank you once again for creating the page. I have started updating it > > > and will add docs and other links tomorrow: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Java7 > > > > > > For anyone and everyone interested, a Java 7 build is now available in > > > the Fedora 16. I will build for rawhide in the coming days as well: > > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=257034 > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Deepak > > > > Hi Andy, > > > After some discussion on #fedora-java over the past 24 hours, I was > > asked to continue the discussion here regarding the implications of > > openjdk 6 and 7 coexisting in F16. Right now, java packages are being > > built for F16 using openjdk 7, and if they are built without > > "target=1.6", they will fail to load under openjdk 6. (One simple > > example of this is xalan, see > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=733686 ). Some possible > > solutions proposed over IRC: > > > > 1) Blacklist openjdk 7 from build roots for f16 -- this means that it > > doesn't get tested very well, though. > > > > This would only be a short term solution. As soon as a package that needs > Java 7 is added/updated, it will require OpenJDK7 to be removed from the > blacklist. > > > 2) Ensure all java packages use target=1.6 -- there's no standard way > > to do this across ant, mvn, javac, etc. though. You could check for > > 1.7 bytecode at the end of a build, but packages would still need to > > be individually fixed. > > > > Agreed. This would be too tedious. > > > 3) Drop openjdk 6 from F16 entirely > > > > I think this is the best, but unfortunately not easily doable at the > moment. Alex (akurtakov) has been working on removing 1.6.0 dependencies > and has encountered cases (e.g. tomcat5) where it is not easily possible > due to interfaces having changed in Java 7. > > Regardless though, we need to make all packages build with 1.7 because > as more packages build with 1.7, packages that require 1.6 explicitly > will fail to build as the 1.6 javac won't be able to load 1.7 compiled > classes. > > Dropping 6 is also problematic because we don't have a TCK for 7 yet, > which means 6 is the only TCK tested version in Fedora atm. > > Nonetheless, I think #3 is the only realistic option that will be most > permanent. > Andrew Haley and I just had a chat about this. We both agree that weaning off the 1.6 dependency is the best long-term solution. We essentially want it so that nothing in Fedora needs 1.6. That said, we will continue to ship 1.6 since 3rd party apps may need it. We will however remove the alternatives for 1.6, so using them will require the user to manually set JAVA_HOME to /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0/ and call the java binary from that dir. This will prevent someone from accidentally switching the system alternative to 1.6 and having (1.7 built) apps fail. Are there any major objections to the above? In the mean time, I am going to start building all java packages currently in F16 against 1.7 only to see the scope of changes that will be needed. Cheers, Deepak > Cheers, > Deepak > > > It was also mentioned that Fedora is beginning to include some > > packages which build much more cleanly on openjdk 7 than they do on 6, > > so enforcing openjdk 6-only build roots might break some things. > > > > Other suggestions are welcome. I don't have a strong opinion about > > this, just a strong interest in having a sane Java environment in F16. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Andy > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
* Andy Grimm [2011-08-26 10:18]: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > * Douglas Myers–Turnbull [2011-07-25 20:53]: > >> > I was planning to do this myself .. glad you started it :) I can take > >> > over the Feature and doing all the work if you're fine with it... > >> > >> Please do! > >> > >> The only work I've done (literally) is on the feature page, but feel > >> free let me know if you need anything from me. > >> > > > > Hi Douglas, > > > > Thank you once again for creating the page. I have started updating it > > and will add docs and other links tomorrow: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Java7 > > > > For anyone and everyone interested, a Java 7 build is now available in > > the Fedora 16. I will build for rawhide in the coming days as well: > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=257034 > > > > Cheers, > > Deepak > Hi Andy, > After some discussion on #fedora-java over the past 24 hours, I was > asked to continue the discussion here regarding the implications of > openjdk 6 and 7 coexisting in F16. Right now, java packages are being > built for F16 using openjdk 7, and if they are built without > "target=1.6", they will fail to load under openjdk 6. (One simple > example of this is xalan, see > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=733686 ). Some possible > solutions proposed over IRC: > > 1) Blacklist openjdk 7 from build roots for f16 -- this means that it > doesn't get tested very well, though. > This would only be a short term solution. As soon as a package that needs Java 7 is added/updated, it will require OpenJDK7 to be removed from the blacklist. > 2) Ensure all java packages use target=1.6 -- there's no standard way > to do this across ant, mvn, javac, etc. though. You could check for > 1.7 bytecode at the end of a build, but packages would still need to > be individually fixed. > Agreed. This would be too tedious. > 3) Drop openjdk 6 from F16 entirely > I think this is the best, but unfortunately not easily doable at the moment. Alex (akurtakov) has been working on removing 1.6.0 dependencies and has encountered cases (e.g. tomcat5) where it is not easily possible due to interfaces having changed in Java 7. Regardless though, we need to make all packages build with 1.7 because as more packages build with 1.7, packages that require 1.6 explicitly will fail to build as the 1.6 javac won't be able to load 1.7 compiled classes. Dropping 6 is also problematic because we don't have a TCK for 7 yet, which means 6 is the only TCK tested version in Fedora atm. Nonetheless, I think #3 is the only realistic option that will be most permanent. Cheers, Deepak > It was also mentioned that Fedora is beginning to include some > packages which build much more cleanly on openjdk 7 than they do on 6, > so enforcing openjdk 6-only build roots might break some things. > > Other suggestions are welcome. I don't have a strong opinion about > this, just a strong interest in having a sane Java environment in F16. > > Thanks, > > --Andy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
* Douglas Myers–Turnbull [2011-07-25 20:53]: > > I was planning to do this myself .. glad you started it :) I can take > > over the Feature and doing all the work if you're fine with it... > > Please do! > > The only work I've done (literally) is on the feature page, but feel > free let me know if you need anything from me. > Hi Douglas, Thank you once again for creating the page. I have started updating it and will add docs and other links tomorrow: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Java7 For anyone and everyone interested, a Java 7 build is now available in the Fedora 16. I will build for rawhide in the coming days as well: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=257034 Cheers, Deepak -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
* Omair Majid [2011-07-29 10:32]: > On 07/25/2011 04:04 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote: > >* Bill Nottingham [2011-07-25 15:54]: > >>Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said: > >>>Robyn and I have talked about how the feature process could be adapted to > >>>allow for more late work to occur however none of that talk has turned into > >>>anything solid yet. One point that bears on this is that the Feature > >>>Owners > >>>must be willing to commit to doing all the work involved in coordination > >>>when they submit something late. In other words, if Java 7 update went in > >>>well before the feature deadline, the expectation would be that packagers > >>>whose packages depended on Java would need to adapt to Java 7. The > >>>expectation now that the Feature Freeze has passed is that the people > >>>pushing Java 7 into the repos would also need to seek out and fix all the > >>>packages that depend on them that are broken. > >> > >>Would we actually be shipping only 7, or both 6 and 7? > >> > > > >This hasn't been debated yet, but I am very much in favour of having > >only 7 in Fedora 16. > > > >If the reason for asking was w.r.t re-builds, it is unlikely that most > >applications will need a rebuild -- only those using deprecated APIs > >(which would have been deprecated for years now) and private APIs would > >be affected. That would likely be a small subset. > > Have you seen the list of incompatibilities? > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/compatibility-417013.html > Thanks. I hadn't seen the full list, but I knew it'd fairly small given how much importance compatibility has been given in the past and for 7. Unfortunately it is not possible to gauge how much Fedora will be affected by that :/ My biggest concern would be for apps using sun.* APIs. As mentioned above though, it should be a small percentage. Cheers, Deepak -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
* Marek Goldmann [2011-07-28 10:41]: > > On 25 lip 2011, at 17:30, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > >>> I created an unfinished, skeletal feature page here: > >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Java7 > >>> Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge to help build it. I'm > >>> announcing it here in case whoever maintains Java 6 in Fedora, or > >>> someone else, is interested. > >>> > > > > I was planning to do this myself .. glad you started it :) I can take > > over the Feature and doing all the work if you're fine with it... > > Anything new in this topic? > > As I'm trying to include JBoss AS7 in Fedora: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JBossAS7 > > I'm very interested in having JDK7 packaged because it is required to build > one of JBoss AS7 dependencies (XNIO). > Hi Marek, Yes, we are just sorting out some stuff on the team side (to figure out most feasible/maintainable approach). As soon as that is done, I will push a java-1.7.0-openjdk package. The alpha deadline is on Tuesday and I hope (.. :) ) to have it built and in before then. Cheers, Deepak -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
* Bill Nottingham [2011-07-25 15:54]: > Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said: > > Robyn and I have talked about how the feature process could be adapted to > > allow for more late work to occur however none of that talk has turned into > > anything solid yet. One point that bears on this is that the Feature Owners > > must be willing to commit to doing all the work involved in coordination > > when they submit something late. In other words, if Java 7 update went in > > well before the feature deadline, the expectation would be that packagers > > whose packages depended on Java would need to adapt to Java 7. The > > expectation now that the Feature Freeze has passed is that the people > > pushing Java 7 into the repos would also need to seek out and fix all the > > packages that depend on them that are broken. > > Would we actually be shipping only 7, or both 6 and 7? > This hasn't been debated yet, but I am very much in favour of having only 7 in Fedora 16. If the reason for asking was w.r.t re-builds, it is unlikely that most applications will need a rebuild -- only those using deprecated APIs (which would have been deprecated for years now) and private APIs would be affected. That would likely be a small subset. Opinions from others are welcome.. Cheers, Deepak -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
* Toshio Kuratomi [2011-07-25 15:18]: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:30:23AM -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > * Toshio Kuratomi [2011-07-23 20:03]: > > > The alpha change deadline is a week and three days away so this is very > > > likely too late. If you want to try to get an exception to get this in, > > > you > > > need to get the Java SIG excited to do it, get the Feature page finished > > > (with estimates of how much time it will take to finish and who will do > > > the > > > work) and put it before FESCo/Feature Wrangler to see if they'll grant an > > > exception. > > > > > > Judging by the state things are in now, I don't know that it looks too > > > hopeful unless you get some Java SIG people to commit to working on it. > > > > > > > This is doable by the Alpha deadline. The main holdup for us has been a > > lack of OpenJDK TCK for v7. The actual RPM can be written fairly > > quickly. We were hopeful that we'd be able to push a more tested initial > > version. But given the deadlines, it appears we will have to push > > whatever we have right now and modify/fix it as needed when we have the > > TCK. > > > Note: The *Feature deadline* is already passed. That's why I use the word > "exception" in what I wrote. > > Robyn and I have talked about how the feature process could be adapted to > allow for more late work to occur however none of that talk has turned into > anything solid yet. One point that bears on this is that the Feature Owners > must be willing to commit to doing all the work involved in coordination > when they submit something late. In other words, if Java 7 update went in > well before the feature deadline, the expectation would be that packagers > whose packages depended on Java would need to adapt to Java 7. The > expectation now that the Feature Freeze has passed is that the people > pushing Java 7 into the repos would also need to seek out and fix all the > packages that depend on them that are broken. > Ah, thank you for the clarification. I wasn't aware of the above distinction in exception cases. > Hope that helps in creating a Feature plan that FESCo can grant an exception > to in good conscience, > Thanks, Deepak > -Toshio > > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
* Toshio Kuratomi [2011-07-23 20:03]: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 02:00:24PM -0700, Douglas Myers–Turnbull wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Just something I wanted to bring to attention: > > > > Java 7 is slated for release (after years of hassle and heated debate) > > on 28 July, 2011. > > I think this would be an important feature to include for the Fedora > > 16 release, and the months between Java's release and Fedora 16's 25 > > October release would allow plenty of time to integrate Java 7. If I'm > > not mistaken, if Java 7 isn't released this time around, it won't be > > in Fedora until the Fedora 17 release rolls around, nearly a year (!) > > after Java 7 is released. > > > > I created an unfinished, skeletal feature page here: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Java7 > > Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge to help build it. I'm > > announcing it here in case whoever maintains Java 6 in Fedora, or > > someone else, is interested. > > I was planning to do this myself .. glad you started it :) I can take over the Feature and doing all the work if you're fine with it... > The alpha change deadline is a week and three days away so this is very > likely too late. If you want to try to get an exception to get this in, you > need to get the Java SIG excited to do it, get the Feature page finished > (with estimates of how much time it will take to finish and who will do the > work) and put it before FESCo/Feature Wrangler to see if they'll grant an > exception. > > Judging by the state things are in now, I don't know that it looks too > hopeful unless you get some Java SIG people to commit to working on it. > This is doable by the Alpha deadline. The main holdup for us has been a lack of OpenJDK TCK for v7. The actual RPM can be written fairly quickly. We were hopeful that we'd be able to push a more tested initial version. But given the deadlines, it appears we will have to push whatever we have right now and modify/fix it as needed when we have the TCK. Cheers, Deepak > Maybe a better idea would be to try to make your contingency plan into > a Fedora 16 feature and Java 7 as default for all of our java applications > a Fedora 17 feature (that would still need a fesco exception for a late > feature but if the Java 7 stack didn't affect the rest of the software on > the system, it would largely be a Feature needing release notes instad of > a feature needing coordination between maintainers. Those are easier to > grant exceptions for.) > > -Toshio > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora java png parser issue
* Marius Andreiana [2010-12-23 07:01]: > Hi all, > > Please see this bug > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665355 > > Fedora java distribution cannot read some PNG images which work fine in > * Windows java 1.6 > * Linux image viewers > * browsers > * "identify a.png" works: PNG 16x16 16x16+0+0 8-bit DirectClass 1.38KB 0.000u > 0:00.000 > > (more info and code to reproduce in bug). > > Do you have any suggestion for workarounds or fix? (besides re-generating > all pngs somehow) > Hi, I have identified the problem. It is already fixed upstream in OpenJDK7. I have requested a backport to openjdk6 and to icedtea6 (the latter so that it can go in Fedora sooner): http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2010-December/011573.html If you are comfortable with building IcedTea (http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/Main_Page#Quick_start_.26_Building), or the java-1.6.0-openjdk RPM, you can apply the above patch and do so and it should resolve the issue. Outside of a new JDK build, your only option unfortunately is to fix the iTXt chunks in the pngs and regenerate them. Cheers, Deepak > Thanks > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora java png parser issue
* Andrew Haley [2010-12-23 10:58]: > On 12/23/2010 03:01 PM, Mat Booth wrote: > > On 23 December 2010 12:01, Marius Andreiana > > wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Please see this bug > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665355 > >> > >> Fedora java distribution cannot read some PNG images which work fine in > >> * Windows java 1.6 > >> * Linux image viewers > >> * browsers > >> * "identify a.png" works: PNG 16x16 16x16+0+0 8-bit DirectClass 1.38KB > >> 0.000u > >> > >> 0:00.000 > >> > >> (more info and code to reproduce in bug). > >> > >> Do you have any suggestion for workarounds or fix? (besides re-generating > >> all pngs somehow) > > > > You might get more response from the java-devel list. I will forward > > this message to that list. > > I assure you that the Red Hat Java team is listening. :-) > > Right now I have no idea what the problem might be. > I am looking into this now. Cheers, Deepak > Andrew. > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [fedora-java] Orphaning of Java packages I own
* Mario Torre [2010-04-21 12:43]: > Il giorno mer, 21/04/2010 alle 12.17 -0400, Deepak Bhole ha scritto: > > Hi, > > > > I have orphaned the following packages in Fedora. Some of these are > > core Java packages -- I don't have time to maintain them anymore and > > would rather that someone more active take over: > > Hi Deepak, > > I could jump in on a couple of them, but I never did any non trivial > packaging so far, so I need someone to help me at the beginning (it > doesn't have to be you, just somebody else on the list that have some > time). > > I'm interested in those for the moment: junit, log4j, hsqldb, antlr > > I don't think I have time to grab the others, but once I learn the > process I may be able to do it as well. > Hi Mario, Great! :) Feel free to ask me any questions you have. Here are a couple of links you might find useful when getting started: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java Cheers, Deepak > Cheers, > Mario > -- > pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF > Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF > > Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ > Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org > OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ > > Please, support open standards: > http://endsoftpatents.org/ > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Orphaning of Java packages I own
Hi, I have orphaned the following packages in Fedora. Some of these are core Java packages -- I don't have time to maintain them anymore and would rather that someone more active take over: antlr -- ANother Tool for Language Recognition cryptix-asn1 -- Cryptix ASN1 implementation hsqldb -- Hsqldb Database Engine isorelax -- Public interfaces for RELAX Core jakarta-commons-dbcp -- Jakarta Commons DataBase Pooling Package jakarta-commons-logging -- Jakarta Commons Logging Package jakarta-commons-pool -- Jakarta Commons Pool Package jakarta-commons-validator -- Jakarta Commons Validator jdom -- Java alternative to DOM and SAX jlex -- A Lexical Analyzer Generator for Java jrefactory -- JRefactory and Pretty Print jsch -- Pure Java implementation of SSH2 junit -- Java regression test package jzlib -- JZlib re-implementation of zlib in pure Java ldapjdk -- The Mozilla LDAP Java SDK log4j -- Java logging package lucene -- High-performance, full-featured text search engine maven-doxia -- Content generation framework maven-jxr -- Source cross referencing tool maven-scm -- Common API for doing SCM operations maven-shared -- Maven Shared Components maven-surefire -- Test framework project maven2 -- Java project management and project comprehension tool maven2-common-poms -- Common poms for maven2 objectweb-anttask -- ObjectWeb Ant task plexus-ant-factory -- Plexus Ant component factory plexus-appserver -- Plexus Application Server plexus-bsh-factory -- Plexus Bsh component factory plexus-cdc -- Plexus Component Descriptor Creator plexus-compiler -- Compiler call initiators for Plexus plexus-maven-plugin -- Plexus Maven plugin plexus-runtime-builder -- Plexus Component Descriptor Creator plexus-xmlrpc -- Plexus XML RPC Component struts -- Web application framework tanukiwrapper -- Java Service Wrapper velocity -- Java-based template engine wsdl4j -- Web Services Description Language Toolkit for Java xjavadoc -- The XJavaDoc engine xmlrpc -- Java XML-RPC implementation Cheers, Deepak -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
