+1

I have reservations concerning the whole plan that I don't think were addressed in the discussion.fp.o thread.

I'm -1 for now (not because I don't like shiny new stuff, but because the way this update will be handled sounds very messy for both packagers and users).

This was discussed during today's meeting:

• AGREED: The "Java25 and No More System JDK" Change Proposal will be discussed at next week's FESCo meeting (April 8, 2025). The Proposal Owners are invited to join. (+7, 0, -0) (@decathorpe:fedora.im, 18:17:30)

@jvanek it would be great if you could join next week's meeting to discuss this Change Proposal. (April 8, 2025, at 17:00 UTC in #meeting:fedoraproject.org)

hi!. Yes, I'm always trying to join those meeting. Will do my best. TY!

Summer time.. winter time.. Gosh... somebody finally cancel that :) 17:00 UTC is 19:00 CET? If I'm not there, please try to ping me somehow.

17:00 UTC is 19:00 CEST

Hi! My apologise. I fell sick and did not make it. Was it postponed for next meeting? Is there anything I shoudl/must/can do?

We will revisit this topic in the next meeting - same place, same time (April 15).

ok. ty!

hi. My aplogise:( I'm really really sorry, I had family emergency. Is there any update?

No problem, we ended up (through my fault) not holding a fesco meeting yesterday. We will try to discuss this topic next week then (April 22), same time, same place.

ok :)

@jvanek I'm preparing the agenda right now, will cc you when I send it out as a reminder

ty!

Just an additional remark from Fedora Servers side of view. Java applications are still virulent server applications. And a very important quality criterion is backward compatibility and the ability to use older runtime environments in parallel. I know you can use the Eclipse Foundation rpms, they fit in perfectly. But we would then “officially” use binary packages from external sources.
I would certainly regret this step. Perhaps it would be better to resume onboarding. Some days ago, Andrei Mititelu posted that he would like to help create Java packages (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YGISFGSBNZI25XKAS4VSFXIMY4QC5T6Y/#PY2XECH2MYKDQWTCHVNQNFTVX7YANTDW). Unfortunately, I'm the only one who responded. And I'm looking for an onboarding opportunity myself. Nobody from the Java Core team has replied. And this has already happened several times in the past.

Perhaps (re-)virtalization would be a first approach to solving the resource problem. And only if that doesn't work, then ....
(And to get ahead of the popular argument “then do it”: I'd love to, but it can't work without participation from the core team).

Perhaps (re-)virtalization would be a first approach to solving the resource problem.

Been there, done that. We started an entirely new SIG (@java-maint-sig) to help organize packaging of Java libraries and applications. Sadly we ran out of steam pretty quickly with there being near-zero interest in Java stuff, and ended up sunsetting the SIG again. There is like 1 person doing Java packaging in Fedora (mizdebsk) plus some that are only tangentially interested because they maintain packages that depend on Java applications, but which are themselves not written in Java (thinking of ANTLR, for example).

As follow up to the discussion in the meeting yesterday I made an attempt to clarify unclear bits of the change proposal. See my response on Discourse thread at https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-java25-and-no-more-system-jdk-system-wide/147319/14

I would prefer give one more week for the points raised in the Discussion thread before bringing this back to FESCo to ensure that we can have a decision next time it reaches FESCo, so I'm not scheduling it this week

Hi all!
Being unable to remove anything from proposal, I had added the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java25AndNoMoreSystemJdk#Description section, where I will try in shortest possible
way reply repeated questions, which are answered to deep in document to be found

Unluckily, 3rd of may I'm leaving for 18days, so I will be unable to reply later then this week. If the voting will come up, feel free to vote this in or out as you need. Note, that java-25-openjdk is already in rawhide, only it do not provide java, as it is very EarlyAccess build. In june, it will start to provide java, because all the tolling is already expecting that, and step back is nearly impossible. If you vote this out, then the only missed thing will be the publicity and the mass rebuild. But that was just "nice to have", not mandatory.

Also note, that I will be extremely glad to improve the page, but am failing to do so. Every question I got up to now, is already in document or is off topic. I will do my best to include anything you wish, but I had not got any question at the end, except that "the doc is to technical". Which I agree it is, but that is the only lead for future java packaging guidelines which exists.
Probably I should have had three self contained changes - java-25-openjdk, multiple java-provides and the mass rebuild....

I had included https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java25AndNoMoreSystemJdk#FAQ for this case, which may, or may not help. Maybe edit the section and add the Questions you miss Answers the most?

Detailed comments:

java-25-openjdk as preferred JDK in F43 and lost of concept of system JDK

"preferred" is vague, normally we'd say "default". Also "and lost of concept" is a very strange phrase, it doesn't even make sense gramatically. So maybe "java-25-openjdk as default JDK in F43 and no system JDK".

Add java-25-openjdk with non blocking mass bump and rebuild.

This is incomprehensible. The summary must provide a short description of the change, without jargon that the average reader has no idea how it interpret.

in f43, java-21-openjdk will continue to exits

"exist"

mass rebuild with java-25-openjdk will happen, but what will fail, will simply revert back to java-21-openjdk

This is not clear. What does "will revert" mean? Will the packages that failed to build in the mass rebuild remain with no changes, causing the last successful build to be present in the composes, or will action be taken to modify those packages to use java-21-openjdk and redo the builds?

for technical details see #Detailed_Description and onwards

Formatting is broken here.

until it is newest JDK providing java

Formatting is suspicious here too. Maybe a quote was intended, not boldface?

FWIW, I find the inconsistent formatting very painful. I see both "java", 'java', and java. I think that using java (with backticks) everywhere would be better.

he wants to pull

they or he/she.

requiremen

"requirement"

ideally immediately after CPU.

I guess "… after CPU unembargo"

no exception it seems

So… when one looks at the ticket, it is closed as Rejected. One needs to dig into the discussion to see that the resolution was to build with a release candidate. Please reword this in a way that makes it clear that no exception is needed and that the build will happen.

--

All that said, after reading the Detailed Description a few times, +1.