On 11/21/2013 08:57 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
These two steps make it rather non-"simple"; one would also determine
which parts of the code base have not been exercised.
If the test suite is so weak that it doesn't cover such basic issues,
you will have trouble with *any* change, not just thi
Quoting Miloslav Trmač (2013-11-21 13:48:51)
> In the thread you and others have suggested that there in fact there
> are no or few "Other developers", and this is all a Java SIG internal
> thing; I don't know whether it's true (and I don't currently care to
> collect the data); the proposal certai
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
> Quoting Jerry James (2013-11-21 17:01:07)
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> > (IIRC somewhere in the thread it's been suggested that software can't
>> > know which one to use: how would the maintainers know
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:34:08 AM
> Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
>
>
> Am 20.11.2013 20:56, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
> > -
Quoting Jerry James (2013-11-21 17:01:07)
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > (IIRC somewhere in the thread it's been suggested that software can't
> > know which one to use: how would the maintainers know then?)
>
> Yes, I raised that question early on in this thread. T
Quoting Miloslav Trmač (2013-11-21 13:48:51)
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov
> wrote:
> > I agree with you that the current Features/Changes system is useless as is
> > now. It was supposed to be a way to collect information for Release notes
> > nothing more AFAIK.
>
> F
Am 21.11.2013 21:50, schrieb Stanislav Ochotnicky:
> Regardless..what I meant to say: Nobody - as in I don't see anyone jumping up
> and down and volunteering to do the work and maintain the code, provide ways
> to
> workaround those inevitable false positives etc. I have asked and received a
>
Quoting Miloslav Trmač (2013-11-21 20:57:38)
> > But if you want a simpler guide:
> > * Install your app with headless Java
> > * Run it
> > * Did it crash?
> These two steps make it rather non-"simple"; one would also determine
> which parts of the code base have not been exercised.
T
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> (IIRC somewhere in the thread it's been suggested that software can't
> know which one to use: how would the maintainers know then?)
Yes, I raised that question early on in this thread. The response I
got was to read this:
http://www.orac
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:06:44AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 20/11/13 20:23, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> >>
> >>We were speaking about giving more power to SIGs related to
> >>discussion about Fedora.next. This can be a g
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov
wrote:
> I agree with you that the current Features/Changes system is useless as is
> now. It was supposed to be a way to collect information for Release notes
> nothing more AFAIK.
From the FESCo side, IMHO "collecting information for Releas
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> In fedora we do our best to figure out what the best course of action is and
> then we execute that.
"The best course of action" _given some limited resources_, which may
drastically alter the outcome.
> Angle 2) Reduce the benefits of th
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 20/11/13 18:53, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>>>
>>> I start to think this conversation goes nowhere. The whole split is
>>> superficial and most java developers are use
On 20/11/13 20:23, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
We were speaking about giving more power to SIGs related to
discussion about Fedora.next. This can be a good start. Stano and
Aleksandar are working on Java maintenance a lot, Java SIG m
Am 20.11.2013 20:56, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Toshio Kuratomi"
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:23:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: F21 System Wid
Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-20 22:46:32)
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:39:48PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >
> > The thing is this is pointless. If the people that would do most of this
> > auditing (Java SIG) do not agree with such scenario the result would be
> > that old Require:jav
- Original Message -
> From: "Toshio Kuratomi"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:46:32 PM
> Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:39:48PM -0500
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:39:48PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>
> The thing is this is pointless. If the people that would do most of this
> auditing (Java SIG) do not agree with such scenario the result would be
> that old Require:java will be kept whenever full java jvm is used as this
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Toshio Kuratomi"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:23:29 PM
> Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>
> We were speaking about giving more power to SIGs related to
> discussion about Fedora.next. This can be a good start. Stano and
> Aleksandar are working on Java maintenance a lot, Java SIG members
> are speaking together, so I
On 20/11/13 18:53, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I start to think this conversation goes nowhere. The whole split is
superficial and most java developers are used to get full jvm if they
require java. This would probably change with
- Original Message -
> From: "Toshio Kuratomi"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:53:15 PM
> Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -050
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:27:38PM -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> I start to think this conversation goes nowhere. The whole split is
> superficial and most java developers are used to get full jvm if they
> require java. This would probably change with Java 8 introducing Profiles
> [1]. And
uot;
>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:10:56 PM
> Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:04:16PM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> >
> > So which one of them would "Provides: java"? I'll give you sev
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:04:16PM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
>
> So which one of them would "Provides: java"? I'll give you several variants:
>
> headless provides java:
> - breaks compatibility expectations of older/3rd party RPMs
> - we suddenly switch every Java package in Fed
Quoting Nicolas Mailhot (2013-11-20 16:20:34)
>
> Le Mer 20 novembre 2013 15:04, Stanislav Ochotnicky a écrit :
>
> > Can we actually list good reasons to have a metapackage or x11 subpackage
> > that
> > would outweight the inevitable disadvantages? If you *really* feel I
> > misunderstood these
Le Mer 20 novembre 2013 15:04, Stanislav Ochotnicky a écrit :
> Can we actually list good reasons to have a metapackage or x11 subpackage
> that
> would outweight the inevitable disadvantages? If you *really* feel I
> misunderstood these two ideas we can start an etherpad or something so we
> can
Quoting Reindl Harald (2013-11-19 23:38:21)
>
>
> Am 19.11.2013 20:29, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> On 11/19/2013 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>> what about having a "java-1.7.0-openjdk" meta-package obsoleting
> >>> the
Le Mar 19 novembre 2013 09:35, Stanislav Ochotnicky a écrit :
> 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.
>
>
> [1] http:
Am 19.11.2013 20:29, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 11/19/2013 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> what about having a "java-1.7.0-openjdk" meta-package obsoleting
>>> the existing one and pulling *both* but decide if Fedora pack
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/19/2013 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > Am 19.11.2013 17:15, schrieb Stanislav Ochotnicky:
> >>> I mean (and sorry that I wasn't clear), why the choice to make
> >>> ja
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/19/2013 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 19.11.2013 17:15, schrieb Stanislav Ochotnicky:
>>> I mean (and sorry that I wasn't clear), why the choice to make
>>> java-headless the special case? Especially if (as it appears
>>> from the reply to
Am 19.11.2013 17:15, schrieb Stanislav Ochotnicky:
>> I mean (and sorry that I wasn't clear), why the choice to make java-headless
>> the special case? Especially if (as it appears from the reply to Jerry
>> James), most packages in Fedora will only need the headless version.
>>
>> (So the headles
Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-19 10:49:57)
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 09:29:40AM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> > Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-18 17:08:12)
> > > On Nov 15, 2013 4:09 AM, "Stanislav Ochotnicky"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
>
* 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
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 09:29:40AM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-18 17:08:12)
> > On Nov 15, 2013 4:09 AM, "Stanislav Ochotnicky"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
> > > > * (optional) Mass-change spec files that have "Requ
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
Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-18 17:08:12)
> On Nov 15, 2013 4:09 AM, "Stanislav Ochotnicky"
> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
> > > * (optional) Mass-change spec files that have "Requires: java" to
> "Requires:
> > > java-headless"
> > >
> > > Other developers:
> >
On Nov 15, 2013 4:09 AM, "Stanislav Ochotnicky"
wrote:
>
> Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
> > * (optional) Mass-change spec files that have "Requires: java" to
"Requires:
> > java-headless"
> >
> > Other developers:
> > * Modify spec files to have "Requires: java-headless" instead o
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 dete
- Original Message -
> From: "Nicolas Mailhot"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 2:51:08 AM
> Subject: Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
>
>
> Le Sam 16 novembre 2013 10:13, Ric
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:20:34 +0100
Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
...snip...
> How about this:
> * I file bug for every package that BRs java
> * We'll give maintainers two weeks (or maybe a month) to look at
> the bug and possibly fix their packages.
> * If they don't take any action
On Po, 2013-11-18 at 07:20 +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> I'd expect out of ~800 packages that BR java only very few are going to be
> affected by java-headless change (i.e. they'd have to revert the change). I'd
> estimate maybe 30 broken packages and some we know wouldn't work so we would
Quoting Ville Skyttä (2013-11-15 18:30:33)
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
> wrote:
> >> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/jing-trang.git/commit/?id=6d46e64fe0f365a947c7095adaf65e8cc2c90d5b
> >
> > Ugh. Why did you have to do that?
>
> Huh, wow, that's not at all the resp
Quoting Richard W.M. Jones (2013-11-16 10:13:33)
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 02:34:00AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik
> > wrote:
> > > == Scope ==
> > > Proposal owners:
> > > * Modify javapackages-tools package to automatically generate
> > > "
Le Sam 16 novembre 2013 10:13, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
> Wouldn't it be better to inspect the *.class files to find out what
> other classes they depend on. Then you could have automatically
> generated Perl-style dependencies like:
>
> Requires: java(java.net.URL)
I'm pretty sure that d
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 02:34:00AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > == Scope ==
> > Proposal owners:
> > * Modify javapackages-tools package to automatically generate
> > "java-headless"
> > autorequires (simple change)
> > * Identify and
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> == Scope ==
> Proposal owners:
> * Modify javapackages-tools package to automatically generate "java-headless"
> autorequires (simple change)
> * Identify and file bugs for affected packages (repoquery and bugzilla bug
> creation)
> * (opt
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/jing-trang.git/commit/?id=6d46e64fe0f365a947c7095adaf65e8cc2c90d5b
>
> Ugh. Why did you have to do that?
Huh, wow, that's not at all the response I was expecting. What did you
expect to achieve with
Il 15/11/2013 14:22, Stanislav Ochotnicky ha scritto:
Quoting Ville Skyttä (2013-11-15 14:11:37)
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
* (optional) Mass-change spec files that have "Requires: java" to "Requires:
java-headles
Quoting Ville Skyttä (2013-11-15 14:11:37)
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
> wrote:
> > Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
> >> * (optional) Mass-change spec files that have "Requires: java" to
> >> "Requires:
> >> java-headless"
> >>
> >> Other developers:
> >>
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
> Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
>> * (optional) Mass-change spec files that have "Requires: java" to "Requires:
>> java-headless"
>>
>> Other developers:
>> * Modify spec files to have "Requires: java-headless" instead of
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
> * (optional) Mass-change spec files that have "Requires: java" to "Requires:
> java-headless"
>
> Other developers:
> * Modify spec files to have "Requires: java-headless" instead of "Requires:
> java"
> * (note) JavaSIG has several proven package
thank you!
Am 15.11.2013 12:28, schrieb Jaroslav Reznik:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Headless Java =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/HeadlessJava
>
> Change owner(s): Stanislav Ochotnicky
>
> Server installations of Fedora should usually not pull in packages related to
> X syste
54 matches
Mail list logo
