Fedora and JPackage proprietary JDK shims
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Fri May 2 20:10:23 UTC 2008
Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can say that OpenNMS won't currently work with a 1.6 version because it's
>> developers have said so.
>
> So what you're really saying is Fedora doesn't support Java < 6 very
> well.
Yes, as in what pretty much all existing large projects use. I actually
haven't investigated this much beyond OpenNMS and would be happy to hear
otherwise about opengrok, alfresco, openfire, spark etc.
> I don't think anyone would disagree, but you have to understand
> it's not a very interesting problem; these projects should really be
> working to update for 6, regardless of Fedora or OpenJDK - Java 5 is
> in pure maintenance mode now.
Maintenance mode is what developers using things like. No surprises.
> I'm sure there's a fair amount of software out there that doesn't work
> on Java 6, but it's not "most" by a long shot.
Do you have some examples of large and useful things like those above?
I suppose jboss should be the canonical example.
>>> It's been well known for years how to install the proprietary
>>> JDK;
>>>
>> Well known by?
>
> Really...it's in a lot of FAQs, etc.
Are any of them fedora-hosted where a user would likely look for this
information?
>> That would have been just fine, but there have been long intervals where
>> jpackage has not had a suitable repo (and again, I don't see any reason that
>> should even have needed to change across fedora versions since java code is
>> pretty much independent of anything else)
>
> Perhaps; I've personally only used the jpackage shims on RHEL (which
> is much closer to jpackage's target audience).
But EL5 wasn't supported for long after its introduction either.
>> and in earlier conversations here
>> I thought someone said the relationship was deliberately broken with
>> portions moved into fedora packages and the rest ignored.
>
> If Fedora and JPackage were on Facebook, the relationship status would
> be "It's complicated". But we are cooperating on many levels, and I
> would certainly not call it broken.
Is this changing? I do see some stuff for f7/8 that I didn't think was
there before.
> Bottom line - should Fedora ship the proprietary JDK shim? I don't
> think it's worth the user confusion over just telling people to go to
> JPackage, but if someone stepped up, did the work, and submitted it
> and was going to maintain/own it, it might happen.
If jpackage has a suitable documented repo, that's fine. I just
couldn't find any for fc7/8 or rhel5 for a year or so.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmiksell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list