Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Explain why the RPM dependencies are so wacky #96

Merged
merged 4 commits into from May 9, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@svanoort
Copy link
Member

svanoort commented Apr 13, 2017

If we can't fix it, and the hack (pushing a nasty virtual RPM to our own repo) is essentially worse... at least we can explain why it is the way it is.

And the reason is Oracle.

@reviewbybees

@reviewbybees

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

reviewbybees commented Apr 13, 2017

This pull request originates from a CloudBees employee. At CloudBees, we require that all pull requests be reviewed by other CloudBees employees before we seek to have the change accepted. If you want to learn more about our process please see this explanation.

@batmat

batmat approved these changes Apr 14, 2017

Add note to RPM and SuSE that java dependency must be provided due to…
… inability of the Oracle Java RPMs to register as providing java
@@ -24,6 +24,10 @@
</pre>
<p>
You will need to explicitly install a Java runtime environment, because Oracle's Java RPMs are incorrect and fail to register as providing a java dependency.

This comment has been minimized.

@daniel-beck

daniel-beck Apr 14, 2017

Member

Could this list the minimum JRE by Jenkins version, or should we just say "Java 8 or GTFO"?

FTR:

  • 2.54 (2017-04) and newer: Java 8
  • 1.612 (2015-05) and newer: Java 7
  • 1.520 (2013-06) and newer: Java 6

So let's plan the Java 9 dependency for March 2019 :-)

This comment has been minimized.

@oleg-nenashev

oleg-nenashev Apr 25, 2017

Member

The proposal from @daniel-beck LGTM

This comment has been minimized.

@svanoort

svanoort Apr 25, 2017

Author Member

Ehhhhhh, then we have yet another thing that must be done manually and remembered when we add Java 9 support. And historically since this is a purely-manual process we miss things.

This comment has been minimized.

@svanoort

svanoort Apr 25, 2017

Author Member

But okay I guess.

@recampbell recampbell requested a review from oleg-nenashev Apr 25, 2017

@oleg-nenashev
Copy link
Member

oleg-nenashev left a comment

Before going forward, we probably need to define how we use&version packaging for different Jenkins cores

@@ -24,6 +24,10 @@
</pre>
<p>
You will need to explicitly install a Java runtime environment, because Oracle's Java RPMs are incorrect and fail to register as providing a java dependency.

This comment has been minimized.

@oleg-nenashev

oleg-nenashev Apr 25, 2017

Member

The proposal from @daniel-beck LGTM

# Unfortunately the Oracle Java RPMs do not register as providing anything (including "java" or "jdk")
# So either we make a hard requirement on the OpenJDK or none at all
# Only workaround would be to use a java virtual package, see https://github.com/keystep/virtual-java-rpm
# Requires: java >= 1:1.8.0

This comment has been minimized.

@oleg-nenashev

oleg-nenashev Apr 25, 2017

Member

Not correct since we still package 1.7 (e.g. 2.46)

This comment has been minimized.

@svanoort

svanoort Apr 25, 2017

Author Member

Addressed by pegging the legacy build to a specific commit until our LTS baseline is on Java 8.

@oleg-nenashev

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

oleg-nenashev commented Apr 25, 2017

Then it just needs a fix, which has been proposed by @daniel-beck

@jtnord

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

jtnord commented Apr 26, 2017

why do we still require a specific JVM in the debain package? causes issues on Ubuntu 14.04 which is still supported by the vendor.

@daniel-beck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

daniel-beck commented Apr 26, 2017

@jtnord Notably, this one is for the RPMs that don't require Java due to the crazy.

But yes, as I wrote in http://lists.jenkins-ci.org/pipermail/jenkins-infra/2017-April/001108.html :

Another indication we should just remove the Java dependency, like in the RPMs, and let users figure this out themselves. It's not our problem if there's no sane way to declare a Java dependency for Debian packages.

@svanoort

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

svanoort commented May 5, 2017

@oleg-nenashev @daniel-beck Re-review when you guys get a chance?

The SUSE testcases still seem to be a bit quirky (mostly trying to read from a test server) but that's not a regression from this. It's an issue with the test and not the actual packages though.

@svanoort

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

svanoort commented May 5, 2017

@oleg-nenashev
Copy link
Member

oleg-nenashev left a comment

🐝

@daniel-beck

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

daniel-beck commented May 8, 2017

LGTM

@svanoort svanoort merged commit 724f231 into master May 9, 2017

@svanoort svanoort deleted the fix-java8-deps branch May 9, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.