6:57 a.m.
Hi there,
I was surprized that F17 uses OpenJDK7 by default but does not includes
OpenJDK6 packages also, like F16 did.
If I have some app which cannot run on Java 7, what should I do? I know
I can download the proprietary JDK6 from Oracle, but I'd rather use OpenJDK.
I tried installing OpenJDK6 packages from F16 but yum complains they are
obsoleted by OpenJDK7. I also tried downloading IcedTea6 sources and
compiling, but they stop with an "internal compiler error".
Any hints?
[]s, Fernando Lozano
4:40 a.m.
On 05/31/2012 09:33 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> > OpenJDK6 will no longer get security updates after November
2012:
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2012-February/002514.html
> > A large part of the problem is that we will not have access to all the
> > security vulnerability information as it is not made public. That will
> > make it very difficult to fix the underlying issues. I am guessing
> > that a lot of people who will use the Oracle JDK6 beyond the EOL date
> > will probably run the version last available before EOL. We cannot
> > ship such insecure versions in Fedora though.
I don't understand why Oracle JDK EOF affects OpenJDK. I suppose
code is
commited to OpenJDK and then moved to Oracle JDK as with most sane open
source projects with a commercial edition. Am I wrong, and Oracle
developers their JDK at closed doors, and later pushes their patches to
OpenJDK?
Yes, you are.
And couldn't / shouldn't OpenJDK have its own bug track
system, and
should't it be the primary one, instead of the Oracle bug tracking?
Yes, and that is going to happen, but it's a longer-term goal. But
in any case, I would be opposed to Fedora doing long-term support on
an obsolete version of Java. It really isn't Fedora's mission. Fedora
is all about producing a first-class distro based on the latest software.
But even using your rationale, why GCJ, which is Java 5, is still in
Fedora 17?
Because it's still useful, and its upstream is not dead.
Andrew.
3:01 p.m.
* Fernando Lozano <fernando(a)lozano.eti.br> [2012-05-31 15:12]:
Hi Deepak,
>java-1.6.0-openjdk and java-1.7.0-openjdk can co-exist side by side
>happily -- you can even use alternatives to switch the default if you
>really want to.
>
>We just cannot ship 6 in F17 because it will EOL well before F17 does
>and we cannot ship a known insecure version.
Thanks for the info, I feel better with RPM packages (even if I have to reinstall after
upgrades) than custom-built binaries. So I'll give it a try.
But about the EOL date, I could only find on google an EOL date of Nov/2012 for Oracle
JDK, which is the proprietary, commercialy supported build by Oracle. I could not find any
EOL for the OpenJDK project or the IcedTea project.
My expectation, based on current use of Java by developers I know, and past experience
with other Java updates, is that JDK6 will be the most used JDK release for much longer
than the Oracle EOL date. Nothing prevents the open source communities to continue
supporing OpenJDK and IcedTea past Oracle EOL date. I see there's strong demand for
that. So why not doing? Too few people working on that outside of Oracle?
OpenJDK6 will no longer get security updates after November 2012:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2012-February/002514.html
A large part of the problem is that we will not have access to all the
security vulnerability information as it is not made public. That will
make it very difficult to fix the underlying issues.
I am guessing that a lot of people who will use the Oracle JDK6 beyond
the EOL date will probably run the version last available before EOL. We
cannot ship such insecure versions in Fedora though.
You could at least package OpenJDK7 in a way it doesn't obsoletes
OpenJDK6, so if anyone wants to mantain an OpenJDK6 repo for F17 and beyond they can do
so.
The obsoletes was added on purpose. It was added because many packages
require java >= 1:1.6.0. If 7 does not not obsolete 6, older systems
(F15/16) that have 6 will not necessarily pull in 7 as 6 will satisfy
this dependency. However the package will not actually work with 6
because all new packages are being compiled with 7 which produces a
newer bytecode that 6 does not understand. This was the bug that
prompted obsoleting of 6:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817516
Cheers,
Deepak
[]s, Fernando Lozano
2:12 p.m.
Hi Deepak,
java-1.6.0-openjdk and java-1.7.0-openjdk can co-exist side by side
happily -- you can even use alternatives to switch the default if you
really want to.
We just cannot ship 6 in F17 because it will EOL well before F17 does
and we cannot ship a known insecure version.
Thanks for the info, I feel better with RPM packages (even if I have to reinstall after
upgrades) than custom-built binaries. So I'll give it a try.
But about the EOL date, I could only find on google an EOL date of Nov/2012 for Oracle
JDK, which is the proprietary, commercialy supported build by Oracle. I could not find any
EOL for the OpenJDK project or the IcedTea project.
My expectation, based on current use of Java by developers I know, and past experience
with other Java updates, is that JDK6 will be the most used JDK release for much longer
than the Oracle EOL date. Nothing prevents the open source communities to continue
supporing OpenJDK and IcedTea past Oracle EOL date. I see there's strong demand for
that. So why not doing? Too few people working on that outside of Oracle?
You could at least package OpenJDK7 in a way it doesn't obsoletes OpenJDK6, so if
anyone wants to mantain an OpenJDK6 repo for F17 and beyond they can do so.
[]s, Fernando Lozano
11:55 a.m.
Hi Andrew,
I tried installing OpenJDK6 packages from F16 but yum complains they
are
obsoleted by OpenJDK7. I also tried downloading IcedTea6 sources and
compiling, but they stop with an "internal compiler error".
That should work. I'd like to know more. It indicates a pretty major
gcc bug.
Andrew.
Using icedtea6-1.11.2 sources. Run ./configure without any options,
installed libs as it complained, and installed gcj for use as the
bootstrap (or starter?) jdk. Then make.
I everything run a seccond time to get the error messages but now it
worked. But I did a yum update beteen two tries.
[]s, Fernando Lozano
9:42 a.m.
Hi,
On 05/31/2012 02:24 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>> I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons
you
>> mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
>> would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
>> Java 6.
> We did think about it, but OpenJDK 6 is going to be EOL'd this year, with
> a complete cessation of updates.
I can understand you wish to compile everything using OpenJDK7, but why
don't keep OpenJDK6 on the repos as an option, just like you did with
java-1.5.0-gcj ?
Long-term support for releases of packages that are dead upstream
undoubtedly makes sense for some distros, but Fedora doesn't do it.
Fedora has a fairly short lifetime, and OpenJDK 6 will be EOL before
the end of it.
Andrew.
8:15 a.m.
On 05/31/2012 02:09 PM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote:
I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons you
mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
Java 6.
We did think about it, but OpenJDK 6 is going to be EOL'd this year, with
a complete cessation of updates.
Andrew.
8:24 a.m.
Hi Andrew,
> I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons
you
> mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
> would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
> Java 6.
We did think about it, but OpenJDK 6 is going to be EOL'd this year, with
a complete cessation of updates.
Andrew.
I can understand you wish to compile everything using OpenJDK7, but why
don't keep OpenJDK6 on the repos as an option, just like you did with
java-1.5.0-gcj ?
Can I --force installing OpenJDK6 packages from F16 on F17? Won't this
mess up with OpenJDK7?
[]s, Fernando Lozano
8:52 a.m.
* Fernando Lozano <fernando(a)lozano.eti.br> [2012-05-31 09:26]:
Hi Andrew,
>>I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons you
>>mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
>>would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
>>Java 6.
>We did think about it, but OpenJDK 6 is going to be EOL'd this year, with
>a complete cessation of updates.
>
>Andrew.
I can understand you wish to compile everything using OpenJDK7, but
why don't keep OpenJDK6 on the repos as an option, just like you did
with java-1.5.0-gcj ?
Can I --force installing OpenJDK6 packages from F16 on F17? Won't
this mess up with OpenJDK7?
Hi Fernando,
No, that should not mess anything up. However subsequent yum updates may
try to remove 6 again and you will probably have to re-install.
java-1.6.0-openjdk and java-1.7.0-openjdk can co-exist side by side
happily -- you can even use alternatives to switch the default if you
really want to.
We just cannot ship 6 in F17 because it will EOL well before F17 does
and we cannot ship a known insecure version.
Cheers,
Deepak
[]s, Fernando Lozano
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
8:09 a.m.
I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons you
mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
Java 6.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Fernando Lozano <fernando(a)lozano.eti.br>wrote:
Hi there,
I was surprized that F17 uses OpenJDK7 by default but does not includes
OpenJDK6 packages also, like F16 did.
If I have some app which cannot run on Java 7, what should I do? I know I
can download the proprietary JDK6 from Oracle, but I'd rather use OpenJDK.
I tried installing OpenJDK6 packages from F16 but yum complains they are
obsoleted by OpenJDK7. I also tried downloading IcedTea6 sources and
compiling, but they stop with an "internal compiler error".
Any hints?
[]s, Fernando Lozano
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/users<https://admin...
Guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/**Mailing_list_guidelines<http://fedorap...
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
--
Best,
Christopher Svanefalk
8:06 a.m.
On 05/31/2012 12:57 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
I was surprized that F17 uses OpenJDK7 by default but does not
includes
OpenJDK6 packages also, like F16 did.
If I have some app which cannot run on Java 7, what should I do? I know
I can download the proprietary JDK6 from Oracle, but I'd rather use OpenJDK.
I tried installing OpenJDK6 packages from F16 but yum complains they are
obsoleted by OpenJDK7. I also tried downloading IcedTea6 sources and
compiling, but they stop with an "internal compiler error".
That should work. I'd like to know more. It indicates a pretty major
gcc bug.
Andrew.
3:33 p.m.
Hi Deepak,
First, thaks a lot for you patience explaining things you and other
OpenJDK developers should already have discussed to exaustion.
OpenJDK6 will no longer get security updates after November 2012:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2012-February/002514.html
A large part of the problem is that we will not have access to all the
security vulnerability information as it is not made public. That will
make it very difficult to fix the underlying issues. I am guessing
that a lot of people who will use the Oracle JDK6 beyond the EOL date
will probably run the version last available before EOL. We cannot
ship such insecure versions in Fedora though.
I don't understand why Oracle JDK EOF affects OpenJDK. I suppose code is
commited to OpenJDK and then moved to Oracle JDK as with most sane open
source projects with a commercial edition. Am I wrong, and Oracle
developers their JDK at closed doors, and later pushes their patches to
OpenJDK?
And couldn't / shouldn't OpenJDK have its own bug track system, and
should't it be the primary one, instead of the Oracle bug tracking?
> You could at least package OpenJDK7 in a way it doesn't
obsoletes OpenJDK6, so if anyone wants to mantain an OpenJDK6 repo for F17 and beyond they
can do so.
The obsoletes was added on purpose. It was added because many packages
require java>= 1:1.6.0. If 7 does not not obsolete 6, older systems
(F15/16) that have 6 will not necessarily pull in 7 as 6 will satisfy
this dependency. However the package will not actually work with 6
because all new packages are being compiled with 7 which produces a
newer bytecode that 6 does not understand. This was the bug that
prompted obsoleting of 6:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817516
For me it looks like the real fix would be updating the require
statatement on each package spec.
But even using your rationale, why GCJ, which is Java 5, is still in
Fedora 17? The same resons to purge OpenJDK6 would be valid to purge
GCJ. If GCJ can be kept, although not being able to run the java
packages included as part of the distro, OpenJDK6 could be kept also.
I am used to open source communities, for example apache tomcat and
postgresql, supporting older releases much longer than commercial
counterparts, for example websphere and oracle db, because this meets a
real user need. I can't understand why OpenJDK / IcedTea cannot do the
same, and have to bown down to Oracle EOL.
[]s, Fernando Lozano
4348
days inactive
4349
days old
11 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andrew Haley -
Christopher Svanefalk -
Deepak Bhole -
Fernando Lozano