F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
9 a.m.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_JDKs
== Summary ==
java-1.8.0-openjdk, java-11-openjdk, java-17-openjdk and
java-latest-openjdk packages will no longer build i686 subpackages
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:jvanek| Jiri Vanek]]
* Email: <jvanek(a)redhat.com>
* Product: java and java stack
* Responsible WG: java-sig (java and java-maint)(which no longer exists)
=== Expected schedule ===
* during march, drop i686 builds from all jdks in fedora rawhide
== Detailed Description ==
Fedora currently ships:
* java-1.8.0-openjdk (LTS)
* java-11-openjdk (LTS)
* java-17-openjdk (LTS)
* java-latest-openjdk (STS, jdk18).
All those builds on all architectures except jdk8, where arm32 with
jit is built by different package.
Unluckily, the i686 bit builds of jdk are rotten in upstream. The
recent breakage of i686 JIT just before branching nearly killed jdk17
as system jdk feature.
The rotting have main visibility with newer GCCs. If GCC bump, and it
does, it always triggers new issues in i686 JIT, and there is less and
less people to somehow workaround them. Unluckily, there is probably
no longer anyone willing to really fix them
== Benefit to Fedora ==
The i686 builds are rotten in usptream, and to patch them localy had
become pain. We may be introducing very bugy i686 jdk. Better then to
do so, we would rather not ship that at all.
This will untie hands of both JDK and GCC developers, who will no
longer need to dive into nasty legacy code.
== Scope ==
==== Change owners ====
* we will simiply stop building i686 pkg in rawhide
==== Other developers ====
* may notice the multilib i686 java missing.
* it is up to them to drop i686 builds or to povide workaround (if possible)
==== Other ====
* Release engineering: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10686
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
* The upgrade on multilib systems will lead to autoremoval of i686 javastack
* which should be minimum - 99% of javastack is noarch
== How To Test ==
install i686 java will result to not packages found
== User Experience ==
User experience on multilib systems will be bad. Bad reasonable.
== Dependencies ==
There are is unknown number of multilib java consumers. I expect some
of them may rise voice, but that will have to handled one by one.
== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism: return i686 packages
* Contingency date: (not provided)
== Documentation ==
Will be neded...
== Release Notes ==
None yet...
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
8:35 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 4:01 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
(snip)
== Scope ==
==== Change owners ====
* we will simiply stop building i686 pkg in rawhide
==== Other developers ====
* may notice the multilib i686 java missing.
* it is up to them to drop i686 builds or to povide workaround (if possible)
Hm, that sounds potentially risky way to do this. And also just breaks
stuff and leaves it to the package maintainers to fix things.
Did you consider adding a %{java_arches} macro that can be used to
limit builds of noarch Java packages to non-i686 architectures?
Did you check the dependency tree of the non-noarch Java packages? For
example, are there any important, non-Java packages that depend on
architecture-specific Java packages, like JNA?
For example, these packages might be problematic:
- jna ← jline
- jna ← libvirt-java
- jna ← mariadb-java-client
- jna ← scala
- jna ← svnkit
Will package maintainers need to exclude all those packages (and, in
turn, all their dependent packages) from i686?
Fabio
5:31 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
Hi!
You have valid points.
The non transitive list is indeed not somehow immense[1]. Will add it to wiki page. Will
also provide few recursive iterations. Ty for reminder.
As for the java-arches macro, I have no objections to it. It is PR to jpackages-tools?
But maybe one note against - it may cause inconsistency, if somebody will decide to
maintain another version of java - eg as now happens for jdk8 aarch32
TY!
J.
[1]
jvanek jvanek 11:27:07 ~ $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-headless | grep -v
-e \\.noarch -e \\.src
DecodeIR-0:2.45-19.fc36.i686
DecodeIR-0:2.45-19.fc36.x86_64
R-java-0:4.1.2-4.fc36.x86_64
cryptlib-java-0:3.4.6-4.fc36.x86_64
cryptlib-java-0:3.4.6-7.fc36.x86_64
csound-java-0:6.16.2-3.fc36.i686
csound-java-0:6.16.2-3.fc36.x86_64
cvc4-java-0:1.8-9.fc36.x86_64
eclipse-swt-1:4.22-4.fc36.x86_64
freewrl-java-0:4.3.0-11.20200221gite99ab4a.fc36.x86_64
gdal-java-0:3.4.1-4.fc36.x86_64
jansi-0:2.4.0-3.fc36.x86_64
jansi-native-0:1.8-9.fc36.x86_64
java-gnome-0:4.1.3-29.fc36.x86_64
java-libsbml-0:5.19.0-11.fc36.x86_64
jblas-0:1.2.5-6.fc36.x86_64
jffi-0:1.3.4-1.fc36.x86_64
jffi-native-0:1.3.4-1.fc36.x86_64
jigawatts-0:0.2-0.6.202108276c78499.fc36.x86_64
jna-0:5.10.0-3.fc36.x86_64
jni-inchi-0:0.8-5.fc36.x86_64
jpcap-0:0.7-32.fc36.x86_64
jssc-0:2.8.0-22.fc36.x86_64
libbluray-bdj-0:1.3.0-4.fc36.x86_64
libbluray-bdj-0:1.3.1-1.fc36.x86_64
libphidget-java-0:2.1.8.20140319-19.fc36.x86_64
libreoffice-core-1:7.3.0.3-3.fc36.x86_64
libreoffice-core-1:7.3.1.3-2.fc36.x86_64
libwebp-java-0:1.2.2-2.fc36.x86_64
libwebp-java-0:1.2.2-4.fc36.x86_64
link-grammar-java-0:5.10.2-3.fc36.i686
link-grammar-java-0:5.10.2-3.fc36.x86_64
mapserver-java-0:7.6.4-11.fc36.x86_64
mecab-java-0:0.996-3.fc36.4.x86_64
nailgun-0:0.9.1-20.fc36.x86_64
octave-6:6.4.0-5.fc36.i686
octave-6:6.4.0-5.fc36.x86_64
opencv-java-0:4.5.5-5.fc36.x86_64
openmpi-java-0:4.1.2-3.fc36.x86_64
openni-java-0:1.5.7.10-26.fc36.x86_64
pl-jpl-0:8.4.2-1.fc36.x86_64
plplot-java-0:5.15.0-37.fc36.i686
plplot-java-0:5.15.0-37.fc36.x86_64
ppl-java-0:1.2-23.fc36.x86_64
python3-pyjnius-0:1.3.0-10.fc36.x86_64
qdbm-java-0:1.8.78-50.fc36.i686
qdbm-java-0:1.8.78-50.fc36.x86_64
sphinx-java-0:2.2.11-22.fc36.x86_64
tuxguitar-0:1.5.4-4.fc36.x86_64
unifi-0:7.0.23-1.fc36.x86_64
unifi-lts-0:5.6.42-10.fc36.x86_64
will-crash-0:0.13.3-6.fc36.i686
will-crash-0:0.13.3-6.fc36.x86_64
jvanek jvanek 11:10:27 ~ $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java | grep -v -e
\\.noarch -e \\.src
ProjectX-0:0.91.0-20.fc36.x86_64
Singular-surfex-0:4.2.0p3-3.fc36.x86_64
bolzplatz2006-0:1.0.3-51.fc36.x86_64
cephfs-java-2:16.2.7-10.fc36.x86_64
cephfs-java-2:16.2.7-11.fc36.x86_64
java-z3-0:4.8.14-4.fc36.x86_64
libcephfs_jni-devel-2:16.2.7-10.fc36.x86_64
libcephfs_jni-devel-2:16.2.7-11.fc36.x86_64
libcephfs_jni1-2:16.2.7-10.fc36.x86_64
libcephfs_jni1-2:16.2.7-11.fc36.x86_64
portmidi-tools-0:217-43.fc36.x86_64
sdljava-0:0.9.1-56.fc36.x86_64
jvanek 11:27:07 ~ $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-headless | grep -v -e
\\.noarch -e \\.src
DecodeIR-0:2.45-19.fc36.i686
DecodeIR-0:2.45-19.fc36.x86_64
R-java-0:4.1.2-4.fc36.x86_64
cryptlib-java-0:3.4.6-4.fc36.x86_64
cryptlib-java-0:3.4.6-7.fc36.x86_64
csound-java-0:6.16.2-3.fc36.i686
csound-java-0:6.16.2-3.fc36.x86_64
cvc4-java-0:1.8-9.fc36.x86_64
eclipse-swt-1:4.22-4.fc36.x86_64
freewrl-java-0:4.3.0-11.20200221gite99ab4a.fc36.x86_64
gdal-java-0:3.4.1-4.fc36.x86_64
jansi-0:2.4.0-3.fc36.x86_64
jansi-native-0:1.8-9.fc36.x86_64
java-gnome-0:4.1.3-29.fc36.x86_64
java-libsbml-0:5.19.0-11.fc36.x86_64
jblas-0:1.2.5-6.fc36.x86_64
jffi-0:1.3.4-1.fc36.x86_64
jffi-native-0:1.3.4-1.fc36.x86_64
jigawatts-0:0.2-0.6.202108276c78499.fc36.x86_64
jna-0:5.10.0-3.fc36.x86_64
jni-inchi-0:0.8-5.fc36.x86_64
jpcap-0:0.7-32.fc36.x86_64
jssc-0:2.8.0-22.fc36.x86_64
libbluray-bdj-0:1.3.0-4.fc36.x86_64
libbluray-bdj-0:1.3.1-1.fc36.x86_64
libphidget-java-0:2.1.8.20140319-19.fc36.x86_64
libreoffice-core-1:7.3.0.3-3.fc36.x86_64
libreoffice-core-1:7.3.1.3-2.fc36.x86_64
libwebp-java-0:1.2.2-2.fc36.x86_64
libwebp-java-0:1.2.2-4.fc36.x86_64
link-grammar-java-0:5.10.2-3.fc36.i686
link-grammar-java-0:5.10.2-3.fc36.x86_64
mapserver-java-0:7.6.4-11.fc36.x86_64
mecab-java-0:0.996-3.fc36.4.x86_64
nailgun-0:0.9.1-20.fc36.x86_64
octave-6:6.4.0-5.fc36.i686
octave-6:6.4.0-5.fc36.x86_64
opencv-java-0:4.5.5-5.fc36.x86_64
openmpi-java-0:4.1.2-3.fc36.x86_64
openni-java-0:1.5.7.10-26.fc36.x86_64
pl-jpl-0:8.4.2-1.fc36.x86_64
plplot-java-0:5.15.0-37.fc36.i686
plplot-java-0:5.15.0-37.fc36.x86_64
ppl-java-0:1.2-23.fc36.x86_64
python3-pyjnius-0:1.3.0-10.fc36.x86_64
qdbm-java-0:1.8.78-50.fc36.i686
qdbm-java-0:1.8.78-50.fc36.x86_64
sphinx-java-0:2.2.11-22.fc36.x86_64
tuxguitar-0:1.5.4-4.fc36.x86_64
unifi-0:7.0.23-1.fc36.x86_64
unifi-lts-0:5.6.42-10.fc36.x86_64
will-crash-0:0.13.3-6.fc36.i686
will-crash-0:0.13.3-6.fc36.x86_64
jvanek jvanek 11:18:44 ~ $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-devel | grep -v
-e \\.noarch -e \\.src
R-java-devel-0:4.1.2-4.fc36.i686
R-java-devel-0:4.1.2-4.fc36.x86_64
libreoffice-sdk-1:7.3.0.3-3.fc36.x86_64
libreoffice-sdk-1:7.3.1.3-2.fc36.x86_64
openjfx-devel-3:11.0.9.2-10.fc36.x86_64
openjfx-devel-3:11.0.9.2-9.fc36.x86_64
openjfx8-devel-0:8.0.202-32.b07.fc36.x86_64
openmpi-java-devel-0:4.1.2-3.fc36.i686
openmpi-java-devel-0:4.1.2-3.fc36.x86_64
systemtap-runtime-java-0:4.7~pre16433134g7d871ab5-2.fc36.x86_64
systemtap-runtime-java-0:4.7~pre16468670g9f253544-1.fc36.x86_64
--
Jiri Vanek Mgr.
Principal QA Software Engineer
Red Hat Inc.
+420 775 39 01 09
10:29 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:31 AM Jiri Vanek <jvanek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi!
You have valid points.
The non transitive list is indeed not somehow immense[1]. Will add it to wiki page. Will
also provide few recursive iterations. Ty for reminder.
As for the java-arches macro, I have no objections to it. It is PR to jpackages-tools?
But maybe one note against - it may cause inconsistency, if somebody will decide to
maintain another version of java - eg as now happens for jdk8 aarch32
Thank you for including the list of non-noarch Java packages.
However, *all* Java packages will need to be adapted to have
"ExcludeArch: i686", even the noarch packages (which will need
something like: "ExclusiveArch: everything-except-i686 noarch").
Otherwise the noarch packages will randomly fail to build, if they are
assigned to a i686 builder.
Fabio
3:32 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
jj, right you are.
--
Jiri Vanek Mgr.
Principal QA Software Engineer
Red Hat Inc.
+420 775 39 01 09
10:54 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
This change has been reworked...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_JDKs
If folks could take a fresh look and see if this addresses their
concerns, that would be great.
kevin
11:40 p.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
On 4/19/22 09:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
This change has been reworked...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_JDKs
If folks could take a fresh look and see if this addresses their
concerns, that would be great.
kevin
It mentions dropping i686 Java in March. We're past that :) Bugs have
been filed urging quick change. Might be worth updating the Change page
reflect that.
--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me
IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
1:58 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
Has a bug been filed against subversion (and other low-lying deps) yet?
(I could not see any bug and wondering why not?)
Naively it looks like the filed bugs are more targeting higher dependent
packages which is less useful.
I think it is the immediate dependencies like subversion (and possibly some
of their direct dependents) which need the most immediate attention.
Filing bugs against many higher dependent packages first seems a bit
premature yet and creates confusion for many packagers.
I think the thread "You can't be serious! you want to remove
mesa-libGL.i686 support?" summarizes the problem better,
but I wanted to make sure the problem is mentioned clearly here in this
Change thread too.
Jens
2:10 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
On 13. 07. 22 8:58, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
Has a bug been filed against subversion (and other low-lying deps)
yet?
(I could not see any bug and wondering why not?)
Yes and it has been fixed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103909
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
4:09 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
On 7/13/22 09:10, Miro Hrončok wrote:
--
Jiri Vanek Mgr.
Principal QA Software Engineer
Red Hat Inc.
+420 775 39 01 09
On 13. 07. 22 8:58, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
> Has a bug been filed against subversion (and other low-lying deps) yet?
The bugs were filled agaisnt all native direct depndencies of java(-devel) and against all
transitive depndencies of java, which are dependece f more then 50 other packages (that
was the point,where the non linear curve really start to grow).
> (I could not see any bug and wondering why not?)
Yes and it has been fixed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103909
Thank you for posting this!
hth!
J.
7:07 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
Small clarification. I had jsut lerned abotu
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval . This java proposal
have nothig to do with that and was asctually done without anybody from JDK maintainers
beeing aware.
Still ti remains valid.
--
Jiri Vanek Mgr.
Principal QA Software Engineer
Red Hat Inc.
+420 775 39 01 09
10:31 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:08 PM Jiri Vanek <jvanek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Small clarification. I had jsut lerned abotu
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval . This java proposal
have nothig to do with that and was asctually done without anybody from JDK maintainers
beeing aware.
Still ti remains valid.
What do you mean with "This java proposal have nothig to do with that
and was asctually done without anybody from JDK maintainers beeing
aware."? The JDK maintainers were not aware of this Java-related
proposal? How can that be?
Fabio
10:43 a.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms from f37
onwards (System-Wide Change)
I interpreted this to mean that, while this Java proposal and
Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval both have to do with i686 removals:
- the Java change should not be seen as part of Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
- the Java change was written without knowledge of Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
- the Java change should be considered separately from Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
- learning about Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval has not given the Java change owners any
reason to change or reconsider this proposal
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022, at 11:31 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:08 PM Jiri Vanek <jvanek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Small clarification. I had jsut lerned abotu
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval . This java proposal
have nothig to do with that and was asctually done without anybody from JDK maintainers
beeing aware.
>> Still ti remains valid.
>
> What do you mean with "This java proposal have nothig to do with that
> and was asctually done without anybody from JDK maintainers beeing
> aware."? The JDK maintainers were not aware of this Java-related
> proposal? How can that be?
>
> Fabio
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)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
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
6:02 p.m.
New subject: F37 Change: Drop i686 builds of jdk8,11,17 and latest (18) rpms
from f37 onwards (System-Wide Change)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:43 PM Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> wrote:
I interpreted this to mean that, while this Java proposal and
Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval both have to do with i686 removals:
- the Java change should not be seen as part of Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
- the Java change was written without knowledge of Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
- the Java change should be considered separately from Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
- learning about Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval has not given the Java change owners
any reason to change or reconsider this proposal
If that's the case, then yes. The two changes are similar, but their
scope does not really overlap.
Fabio
653
days inactive
781
days old
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Ben Beasley -
Ben Cotton -
Fabio Valentini -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Jiri Vanek -
Kevin Fenzi -
Miro Hrončok -
Orion Poplawski