Hello!
I have updated contingency plan:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BuildJdkOncePackEverywhere#Contingency_Plan
/
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes%2FBuildJdkOncePackEverywhere&type=revision&diff=679828&oldid=679493
Sorry for not writing this out of the box. It was
This proposal has now been submitted to FESCo https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3008
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On 6/2/23 01:09, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
I haven’t written Java in years, but my understanding is
that AOT compilation has three major advantages:
1. It reduces the size of total deliverables because the
final executable only includes the libraries it needs
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 11:05 AM Omair Majid wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks your thoughts!
>
> Neal Gompa writes:
>
> > That's actually a lot better than it was when I helped with dotnet
> > package review and bootstrap with 3.1.
>
> Heh. That's very true! 3.1 had at least two source packages that had
Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> I haven’t written Java in years, but my understanding is
> that AOT compilation has three major advantages:
>
> 1. It reduces the size of total deliverables because the
>final executable only includes the libraries it needs.
This may be true for real AOT compilatio
> Am 01.06.2023 um 15:25 schrieb Jiri Vanek :
>
>> ...
> Me, as end user application provider would rather `dnf install/update java`
> then maintain 3rd aprty blob. At least the java is known to be working and on
> Fedora and is built by trusted infrastructure (which I case to agree for
> eve
Hi,
Omair Majid writes:
> If/when RISC-V support lands in .NET (eg, minimum of
> https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/36748), we could use those
> tools (with hopefully minimal changes) to cross compile .NET for RISC-V.
>
> I can ask IBM to prioritize making these tools public.
Sorry, my in
On 6/1/23 07:33, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope.
>
> I do not think a Provides would be a trademark violation. It is a part of
> the standard procedure for renaming a package. But you would have to ask Red
> Hat L
Hi,
Thanks your thoughts!
Neal Gompa writes:
> That's actually a lot better than it was when I helped with dotnet
> package review and bootstrap with 3.1.
Heh. That's very true! 3.1 had at least two source packages that had to
be kept in sync. I think you seemed much happier with the 7.0 revie
On 5/31/23 19:58, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jiri Vanek said:
I have fixed typo in the proposal " Should be built in oldest live EPEL" instead of
" Should be built in latest live EPEL", which was wrong.
At the moment though, the oldest live EPEL is 7, not 8.
Right. And we are n
On 5/31/23 20:02, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Can you clarify this a bit? It sounds like some versions of the JDK in
Fedora will actually be built in EPEL. I feel that all Fedora packages
should actually built for Fedora, not RHEL.
A
On 6/1/23 15:08, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 6/1/23 15:43, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +02
All this change is about the burden of maintaining so many OpenJDK branches as packages in FEdora. Maybe Fedora should stop distributing ancient Java versions as one of our missions is to be cutting edge, maybe we are still encouraging too
many projects to stay running on Java 8.
I am saying
On 6/1/23 13:33, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Jiri Vanek wrote:
At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope.
I do not think a Provides would be a trademark violation. It is a part of
the standard procedure for renaming a package. But you would have to ask Red
Hat Legal for
On 6/1/23 15:43, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
This was heavily dis
On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -
h
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
> On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >>This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -
> >>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes
On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic
Long story short yes, if yo wish to distribute jdk *b
Jiri Vanek wrote:
> At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope.
I do not think a Provides would be a trademark violation. It is a part of
the standard procedure for renaming a package. But you would have to ask Red
Hat Legal for a definite answer. I am not a lawyer.
That said,
Hi Kevin!
I read all your posts.
You are mroevoer correct with everything, exept simple renaming of packages,.
I'mnot sure it may work as strightforward. At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is
definitley out of scope.
As you wrote about the liberty of choice between temurins and fdeoara ona - can
On 5/31/23 20:38, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
Il 30/05/23 20:37, Aoife Moloney ha scritto:
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
b
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic
> Long story short yes, if yo wish to distribute jdk *binary* it have
> to pass java compliance s
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:18 AM Omair Majid wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> Neal Gompa writes:
>
> > Keep in mind that this isn't exactly the first time we've done this
> > either: the .NET runtime is similarly screwy for its bootstrap
> > process, and that's split across a couple of source packages.
> >
> >
* Jiri Vanek:
> This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic
> Long story short yes, if yo wish to distribute jdk *binary* it have to
> pass java compliance suite. Thus, If I build different binary for
Hey,
Neal Gompa writes:
> Keep in mind that this isn't exactly the first time we've done this
> either: the .NET runtime is similarly screwy for its bootstrap
> process, and that's split across a couple of source packages.
>
> At this point, we hold our noses and hope for the best. At least
> th
Neal Gompa wrote:
> Because the alternative is no Java runtime at all, and that's even
> less acceptable.
I do not see why the way the packaging used to work all these years could
not be kept unchanged.
The only issues that were pointed out were related to the Java TCK (that it
takes too long t
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 3:45 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Aoife Moloney wrote:
> > As described in
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs ;
> > during last year, packaging of JDKs had changed dramatically. As
> > described in same wiki page, and individual sub
Peter Boy wrote:
> If you're serious about developing Java applications, you're not going to
> use an uncertified JDK to do it.
Huh? I develop Java applications for a living, and I could not care less
about whether the build of OpenJDK I am running is JCK-certified and/or
named "OpenJDK", as lon
Jiri Vanek wrote:
> Long story short yes, if yo wish to distribute jdk *binary* it have to
> pass java compliance suite.
Only if you ship it as "Java" and/or "OpenJDK". If you ship it as, e.g.,
icedtea-11, nobody can force you to run the JCK.
(And the binary names "java" and "javac" are interfa
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> The prebuilt RPMs are compiled on Fedora infrastructure too, so I don't
> see how that violates the 'build from source' requirement.
The plan is now to build the prebuilt RPMs on RHEL+EPEL instead of the
current Fedora release, which means they would not be built from sourc
Aoife Moloney wrote:
> As described in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs ;
> during last year, packaging of JDKs had changed dramatically. As
> described in same wiki page, and individual sub changes and devel
> threads, with primary reason this - to lower maintena
On 5/31/23 2:02 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Vitaly Zaitsev said:
All program binaries and program libraries included in Fedora
packages must be built from the source code that is included in
the source package.
So... aside from making an exception in the guidelines, it'd also be
> Am 31.05.2023 um 20:27 schrieb Demi Marie Obenour :
>
> On 5/31/23 13:08, Peter Boy wrote:
>> .. ..
>> Did you ever develop in Java? It doesn’t sound like you are even minimally
>> familiar with Java. A little expertise would really be beneficial for devel
>> mailing list.
>
> Can you expl
Il 30/05/23 20:37, Aoife Moloney ha scritto:
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
> by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
On 5/31/23 13:08, Peter Boy wrote:
>
>
>> Am 31.05.2023 um 18:52 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
>> :
>>
>> On 31/05/2023 17:02, David Schwörer wrote:
>>> Could you explain what certification means?
>>> It sounds like you run some very expensive tests, and building is actually
>>> fast.
>>
>>
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > Can you clarify this a bit? It sounds like some versions of the JDK in
> > Fedora will actually be built in EPEL. I feel that all Fedora packages
> > should actually built for Fedora, not RHEL.
> >
> > Also, what exactly does "latest
Once upon a time, Vitaly Zaitsev said:
> >All program binaries and program libraries included in Fedora
> >packages must be built from the source code that is included in
> >the source package.
So... aside from making an exception in the guidelines, it'd also be
trivial to put the entire "real" s
Once upon a time, Jiri Vanek said:
> I have fixed typo in the proposal " Should be built in oldest live EPEL"
> instead of " Should be built in latest live EPEL", which was wrong.
At the moment though, the oldest live EPEL is 7, not 8.
> I do not have hard requirement to build java-latest-openj
> That sounds like an effectively nonfree software. Users cannot build and
> distribute the binaries because the required tools are nonfree.
Not exactly. You can build it and use it freely. Unless you distribute it to
others and call it java...
J.
--
Jiri Vanek Mgr.
Principal QA Software Engin
> This:
>
> ...
> All program binaries and program libraries included in Fedora
> packages must be built from the source code that is included in the source
package.
>
> Source:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-pac...
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2907
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:50 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 31/05/2023 15:44, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > We do similar things in other cases, see for example shim-unsigned.rpm +
> > shim.rpm
>
> Shim is a special case:
> 1. Shim need to be signed by Microsoft on their own infrastructure
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:32:09PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 31/05/2023 19:24, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > Can you point to the specific guideline that this violates ? I know we've
> > always expected that apps are built from pristine upstream source, but I'm
> > not finding th
> Can you clarify this a bit? It sounds like some versions of the JDK in
> Fedora will actually be built in EPEL. I feel that all Fedora packages
> should actually built for Fedora, not RHEL.
>
> Also, what exactly does "latest live EPEL" mean - how is 8 the latest?
>
> I guess basically, can yo
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 04:31:01PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, the only way I can see to do this would be to have releng manually
> tag the builds from oldest release into newer ones each time they are
> built. I do not like this for a number of reasons:
>
> * It's more manual work.
> * It by
On 31/05/2023 19:24, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
Can you point to the specific guideline that this violates ? I know we've
always expected that apps are built from pristine upstream source, but I'm
not finding the specific guideline that describes this right now.
This:
All program binaries and
Once upon a time, Aoife Moloney said:
> Now last step is ahead - to build portable LTS JDKs 8,11,17 and 21 in
> oldest live Fedora, and repack everywhere. java-latest-openjdk, which
> contains latest STS jdk - currently 20, soon briefly 21 and a bit
> alter 22... Should be built in latest live EPE
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 06:48:37PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 31/05/2023 15:44, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > We do similar things in other cases, see for example shim-unsigned.rpm +
> > shim.rpm
>
> Shim is a special case:
> 1. Shim need to be signed by Microsoft on their own infrastr
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:25:23AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 31. 05. 23 1:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > So, the only way I can see to do this would be to have releng manually
> > tag the builds from oldest release into newer ones each time they are
> > built. I do not like this for a number of r
> Am 31.05.2023 um 18:52 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> :
>
> On 31/05/2023 17:02, David Schwörer wrote:
>> Could you explain what certification means?
>> It sounds like you run some very expensive tests, and building is actually
>> fast.
>
> You can't distribute any package named Java or
On 31/05/2023 17:02, David Schwörer wrote:
Could you explain what certification means?
It sounds like you run some very expensive tests, and building is actually fast.
You can't distribute any package named Java or OpenJDK unless it passes
the Oracle test suite.
I think Fedora should drop op
On 31/05/2023 15:44, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
We do similar things in other cases, see for example shim-unsigned.rpm +
shim.rpm
Shim is a special case:
1. Shim need to be signed by Microsoft on their own infrastructure and
this signature will be built directly into PE file.
2. Shim runs on UEFI,
V Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek napsal(a):
> Long story short yes, if yo wish to distribute jdk *binary* it have to pass
> java compliance suite.
[...]
> In addition, this kit complicne tests are proprietary, close source and
> licensed.
That sounds like an effectively nonfree
On 5/31/23 17:02, David Schwörer wrote:
== Benefit to Fedora ==
java maintainers will finally some free time... No kidding -
maintenance and *certification* of so much supported JDKs on so much
Fedora versions is brutal. By building once, and repack, we will
regain cycles to continue suppor
On 5/31/23 16:25, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 5/31/23 9:44 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 03:32:09PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 31/05/2023 14:53, Jiri Vanek wrote:
It is built from sources of course!
What make you think it is not?
For double ensurenes,
> == Benefit to Fedora ==
>
> java maintainers will finally some free time... No kidding -
> maintenance and *certification* of so much supported JDKs on so much
> Fedora versions is brutal. By building once, and repack, we will
> regain cycles to continue support Fedora with all LTS and one ST
On 5/31/23 9:44 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 03:32:09PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 31/05/2023 14:53, Jiri Vanek wrote:
It is built from sources of course!
What make you think it is not?
For double ensurenes, see the fesco ticket in proposal.
IMO, repackaging
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 03:32:09PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 31/05/2023 14:53, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > It is built from sources of course!
> > What make you think it is not?
> > For double ensurenes, see the fesco ticket in proposal.
>
> IMO, repackaging prebuilt RPM packages is no
On 31/05/2023 14:53, Jiri Vanek wrote:
It is built from sources of course!
What make you think it is not?
For double ensurenes, see the fesco ticket in proposal.
IMO, repackaging prebuilt RPM packages is not building from sources.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On 5/31/23 13:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:31 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, the only way I can see to do this would be to have releng manually
tag the builds from oldest release into newer ones each time they are
built. I do not like this for a number of reasons:
* It's
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:44 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:31 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > So, the only way I can see to do this would be to have releng manually
> > tag the builds from oldest release into newer ones each time they are
> > built. I do not like this for
On 5/31/23 08:25, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 31. 05. 23 1:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, the only way I can see to do this would be to have releng manually
tag the builds from oldest release into newer ones each time they are
built. I do not like this for a number of reasons:
* It's more manual work.
It is built from sources of course!
What make you think it is not?
For double ensurenes, see the fesco ticket in proposal.
Thanx!
J.
On 5/31/23 11:59, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 30/05/2023 20:37, Aoife Moloney wrote:
Jdks in fedora are already static, and we repack portable
tarball
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:31 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> So, the only way I can see to do this would be to have releng manually
> tag the builds from oldest release into newer ones each time they are
> built. I do not like this for a number of reasons:
>
> * It's more manual work.
> * It bypasses a
On 30/05/2023 20:37, Aoife Moloney wrote:
Jdks in fedora are already static, and we repack portable
tarball into rpms. Currently, the portbale tarball is built for each
Fedora and Epel version. Goal here is to build each jdk
(8,11,17,21,latest (20)) only once, in oldest live Fedora xor Epel and
On 31. 05. 23 1:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, the only way I can see to do this would be to have releng manually
tag the builds from oldest release into newer ones each time they are
built. I do not like this for a number of reasons:
* It's more manual work.
* It bypasses a bunch of our process. Th
So, the only way I can see to do this would be to have releng manually
tag the builds from oldest release into newer ones each time they are
built. I do not like this for a number of reasons:
* It's more manual work.
* It bypasses a bunch of our process. There wouldn't be any bodhi
update, so no
Wiki Link: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BuildJdkOncePackEverywhere
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 7:37 PM Aoife Moloney wrote:
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This propos
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
== Summary ==
This is the last step in
https://fedo
68 matches
Mail list logo
