|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <!-- Self Contained or System Wide Change Proposal?
| | This proposal had moved to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jvanek/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora until real maintainer of legacy JDK is found. |
| Use this guide to determine to which category your proposed change belongs to.
| |
|
| |
|
| Self Contained Changes are:
| | All reasonable results of devel discussion are included. |
| * changes to isolated/leaf package without the impact on other packages/rest of the distribution
| |
| * limited scope changes without the impact on other packages/rest of the distribution
| |
| * coordinated effort within SIG with limited impact outside SIG functional area, accepted by the SIG
| |
| | |
| System Wide Changes are:
| |
| * changes that does not fit Self Contained Changes category touching
| |
| * changes that require coordination within the distribution (for example mass rebuilds, release engineering or other teams effort etc.)
| |
| * changing system defaults
| |
| | |
| For Self Contained Changes, sections marked as "REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES" are OPTIONAL but FESCo/Wrangler can request more details (especially in case the change proposal category is
| |
| improper or updated to System Wide category). For System Wide Changes all fields on this form are required for FESCo acceptance (when applies).
| |
| | |
| We request that you maintain the same order of sections so that all of the change proposal pages are uniform.
| |
| -->
| |
| | |
| <!-- The actual name of your proposed change page should look something like: Changes/Your_Change_Proposal_Name. This keeps all change proposals in the same namespace -->
| |
| | |
| <!-- The actual name of your proposed change page should look something like: Changes/Your_Change_Proposal_Name. This keeps all change proposals in the same namespace -->
| |
| = Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora <!-- The name of your change proposal --> =
| |
| | |
| == Summary ==
| |
| <!-- A sentence or two summarizing what this change is and what it will do. This information is used for the overall changeset summary page for each release. -->
| |
| Currently Fedora supports one main Java runtime and Java Development Kit (JDK) and from time to time one future JDK as a tech preview. This change should be set of rules, which will enable community to maintain legacy JDKs.
| |
| Please note, people are bugging main JDK maintainers pretty often with this, and to allow them to maintain legacy JDKs is a step in right direction.
| |
| | |
| == Owner ==
| |
| <!--
| |
| For change proposals to qualify as self-contained, owners of all affected packages need to be included here. Alternatively, a SIG can be listed as an owner if it owns all affected packages.
| |
| This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are.
| |
| -->
| |
| * Name: [[User:jvanek| Jiri Vanek]]
| |
| <!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. -->
| |
| * Email: jvanek@redhat.com
| |
| ** #fedora-java
| |
| ** #fedora-devel
| |
| * Release notes owner: <!--- To be assigned by docs team [[User:FASAccountName| Release notes owner name]] <email address> -->
| |
| * FESCo shepherd: [[User:nobody| Would_Be_Nice_To_Have]]
| |
| | |
| == Current status ==
| |
| * Targeted release: [[Releases/22 | Fedora 22 ]]
| |
| * Last updated: 2014-02-23
| |
| <!-- After the change proposal is accepted by FESCO, tracking bug is created in Bugzilla and linked to this page
| |
| Bugzilla states meaning as usual:
| |
| NEW -> change proposal is submitted and announced
| |
| ASSIGNED -> accepted by FESCo with on going development
| |
| MODIFIED -> change is substantially done and testable
| |
| ON_QA -> change is code completed and could be tested in the Beta release (optionally by QA)
| |
| CLOSED as NEXTRELEASE -> change is completed and verified and will be delivered in next release under development
| |
| -->
| |
| * Tracker bug: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
| |
| | |
| == Detailed Description ==
| |
| <!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate. A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. -->
| |
| This is no real work proposal. The result of this proposal is set of rules, which will allow community maintainers to pack any legacy jdk and will be ensuring that this JDKs will not conflict by any other JDK and will smoothly integrate to system. The results are summarized here, and pledged for discussion until final resolution is done.
| |
| | |
| === Proposed rules ===
| |
| 0. '''Main JDK maintainers are never ever responsible for any legacy jdk. This must remain clear'''
| |
| ==== option one - introducing new packages - preferred ====
| |
| # main jdk is proclaimed as dead as it was until now. The new jdk is derived as new package prviousName-legacy
| |
| ## so from killed java-1.7.0-openjdk will become new package java-1.7.0-openjdk-legacy
| |
| ## next main jdk do Obsolete previous one as usually
| |
| # new package '''must not''' do any virtual provides (aka java,java-devel)... (protection against random pull by as dependence)
| |
| ## it provides only itself by name
| |
| # Alternatives '''must''' be removed. If not, becasue JDK will stop work, then following must be kept:
| |
| ##its priority '''must''' be kept on less digits (right now it would be 5) then main jdk (protection against winning in alternatives after update)
| |
| ### the automated check as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189084 are '''mandatory'''
| |
| # at least one of the main-jdk's members '''must''' be set as comaintainer (to watch the commits and save the world if necessary)
| |
| # new package '''should''' to follow both original jdk (ideally not change at all (except source updates and necessary)) and current main jdk as close as possibly
| |
| ## here it requires some common sense and a lot of testing if integration with system is as expected
| |
| # as it is generally not new package, the review process '''should''' be only formal - to know maintainer and to create cvs repo
| |
| ## this is quite important, otherwise the new maintainer can become really frustrated, and we are forcing the "dead" package over"orpahned" so the full review (especially in alignment with rule 5) really '''should not''' be forced.
| |
| ## on the contrary, rules agreed here '''must''' be checked. (even the number 5)
| |
| # all depending packages '''must''' keep requiring java-headless or java (and BuildRequires java-devel). Requirements on any exact jdk - or even worse on any exact legacy jdk are forbidden and needs FESCO exception.
| |
| | |
| This option is forcing maintainers to fight with the name x current setup of alternatives. However, the work should be minimal. But it makes the update path pretty clear and it keeps users well protected against legacy jdk.
| |
| | |
| ==== option two - orphaning legacy jdks and ensure update path ====
| |
| # main JDK is only orphaned when new main JDK landed
| |
| ## it do '''not''' Obsolate previous jdk
| |
| # other rules (2-7) are same
| |
| | |
| This is making life of legacy JDK maintainers a bit simpler. '''But...'''
| |
| | |
| '''But...''' To make this work properly with obsolete and update path, this requires metapacakges for each subpackage of openjdk, which have virtual provides and move those virtual provides to this metapackage (which requires real impl). See:
| |
| * https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208563.html
| |
| * https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208466.html
| |
| * https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208496.html
| |
| | |
| ==== option three - out of regular Fedora ====
| |
| # Use https://fedorahosted.org/copr/ for your own dnf repo - http://dnf.baseurl.org/2014/03/19/copr-plugin/
| |
| # then all must above, are just recommendations but with positives/negatives of approach chosen
| |
| | |
| == Benefit to Fedora ==
| |
| <!-- What is the benefit to the platform? If this is a major capability update, what has changed? If this is a new functionality, what capabilities does it bring? Why will Fedora become a better distribution or project because of this proposal?-->
| |
| There do exists products being developed in Fedora, but targeted for third party. Those products may be targeted for different then Fedora's main JDK. Also there exists out of repo java applications which are bound to older JDK version. To make development of such a product more simple or running of those bounded apps easier, to have legacy JDKs directly in Fedora would be nice
| |
| | |
| == Scope ==
| |
| * Proposal owners: are responsible for initial setup of those guidelines.
| |
| <!-- What work do the feature owners have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release? Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
| |
| The FESCO, the owners and pssible legacy JDKs maintainers have to agree on those rules. New legacy JDK can be then added anytime in Fedora lifecycle.
| |
| | |
| * Other developers: no developers <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
| |
| <!-- What work do other developers have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release? Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
| |
| | |
| * Release engineering: in ideal case, no release engineer needed <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
| |
| <!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)? Is a mass rebuid required? If a rel-eng ticket exists, add a link here. -->
| |
| | |
| * Policies and guidelines: The proposal may split to proposal and "Legacy JDKs in Fedora guidelines" pages <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
| |
| <!-- Do the packaging guidelines or other documents need to be updated for this feature? If so, does it need to happen before or after the implementation is done? If a FPC ticket exists, add a link here. -->
| |
| | |
| == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
| |
| <!-- What happens to systems that have had a previous versions of Fedora installed and are updated to the version containing this change? Will anything require manual configuration or data migration? Will any existing functionality be no longer supported? -->
| |
| The result of this proposal should ensure, that upgrading users will not be non-volunteerly affected by legacy jdk
| |
| | |
| <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
| |
| == How To Test ==
| |
| <!-- This does not need to be a full-fledged document. Describe the dimensions of tests that this change implementation is expected to pass when it is done. If it needs to be tested with different hardware or software configurations, indicate them. The more specific you can be, the better the community testing can be.
| |
| | |
| Remember that you are writing this how to for interested testers to use to check out your change implementation - documenting what you do for testing is OK, but it's much better to document what *I* can do to test your change.
| |
| | |
| A good "how to test" should answer these four questions:
| |
| | |
| 0. What special hardware / data / etc. is needed (if any)?
| |
| 1. How do I prepare my system to test this change? What packages
| |
| need to be installed, config files edited, etc.?
| |
| 2. What specific actions do I perform to check that the change is
| |
| working like it's supposed to?
| |
| 3. What are the expected results of those actions?
| |
| -->
| |
| === not interested user ===
| |
| * if you will not notice existence of legacy jdk in koji, the test passed
| |
| | |
| === interested user ===
| |
| * If you are able to install any legacy JDK by simple yum, and it works for you, then the test passed
| |
| | |
| <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
| |
| == User Experience ==
| |
| <!-- If this change proposal is noticeable by its target audience, how will their experiences change as a result? Describe what they will see or notice. -->
| |
| <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
| |
| === not interested user ===
| |
| * update of Fedora will not keep legacy jdk on your system, or at least it will not be set as default
| |
| * operations with packages will not lead to accidental install of legacy jdk (at least easily)
| |
| * you will be able to remove legacy jdk without any complications
| |
| * the packages stack will be run by main jdk
| |
| | |
| === interested user ===
| |
| * is able to install legacy jdks without any complications
| |
| ** is able to use them (also in parallel with regular one)
| |
| ** the packages stack will be run by main jdk (but not obligatory without manual interference)
| |
| ** you are able to use the legacy jdk for your work
| |
| | |
| == Dependencies ==
| |
| <!-- What other packages (RPMs) depend on this package? Are there changes outside the developers' control on which completion of this change depends? In other words, completion of another change owned by someone else and might cause you to not be able to finish on time or that you would need to coordinate? Other upstream projects like the kernel (if this is not a kernel change)? -->
| |
| | |
| <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
| |
| * No current package should depend on this proposal
| |
| * future legacy JDKS are all depending on the result of proposal
| |
| * packages which may depend on legacy jdk may appear in future, but have to attend
| |
| | |
| == Contingency Plan ==
| |
| | |
| <!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan? This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration". Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages). If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy. -->
| |
| * Contingency mechanism: The legacy JDKs must follow here agreed rules. Theirs not keeping may lead to ban package. However the existence of legacy JDK is not condition for existence of those rules. So no legacy jdk is also an success. '''Main JDK maintainers are never ever responsible for any legacy jdk. This must remian clear'''
| |
| <!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place? This will typically be the beta freeze. -->
| |
| * Contingency deadline: Beta freeze <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
| |
| <!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? -->
| |
| * Blocks release? NO
| |
| * Blocks product? NO
| |
| | |
| == Documentation ==
| |
| <!-- Is there upstream documentation on this change, or notes you have written yourself? Link to that material here so other interested developers can get involved. -->
| |
| <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
| |
| This proposal itself is an documentation, unless it is split to proposal and guideline.
| |
| | |
| == Release Notes ==
| |
| <!-- The Fedora Release Notes inform end-users about what is new in the release. Examples of past release notes are here: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ -->
| |
| <!-- The release notes also help users know how to deal with platform changes such as ABIs/APIs, configuration or data file formats, or upgrade concerns. If there are any such changes involved in this change, indicate them here. A link to upstream documentation will often satisfy this need. This information forms the basis of the release notes edited by the documentation team and shipped with the release.
| |
| Release Notes are not required for initial draft of the Change Proposal but has to be completed by the Change Freeze.
| |
| -->
| |
| Release notes should be mentioning, that any legacy jdk which is coming with this Fedora is subject of those conditions.
| |
| | |
| [[Category:ChangeAnnounced]]
| |
| <!-- When your change proposal page is completed and ready for review and announcement -->
| |
| <!-- remove Category:ChangePageIncomplete and change it to Category:ChangeReadyForWrangler -->
| |
| <!-- The Wrangler announces the Change to the devel-announce list and changes the category to Category:ChangeAnnounced (no action required) -->
| |
| <!-- After review, the Wrangler will move your page to Category:ChangeReadyForFesco... if it still needs more work it will move back to Category:ChangePageIncomplete-->
| |
| | |
| <!-- Select proper category, default is Self Contained Change -->
| |
| [[Category:SystemWideChange]]
| |
