Bug 504189

Summary:	shouldn't java-1.6.0-openjdk be removed from epel repos?
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora EPEL	Reporter:	Rex Dieter <rdieter>
Component:	java-1.6.0-openjdk	Assignee:	Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	el5	CC:	djuran, lkundrak, mastahnke, mishu, ralph
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	ActualBug
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-12-13 01:21:54 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	499079
Bug Blocks:

Description Rex Dieter 2009-06-04 17:01:58 UTC

Now that java-1.6.0-openjdk is in rhel5 (since 5.3 it seems), shouldn't be removed from epel-5 repos?

There's another issue that epel's newest version,
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.0.b12.el5.2

trumps rhel5's,
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-0.30.b09.el5 (latest in updates that I can find atm).

Comment 1 Lubomir Rintel 2009-06-04 21:06:34 UTC

Thanks for your report.
Please go complain at your operating system vendor.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 498967 ***

Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2009-06-04 21:55:22 UTC

OK, I care less about the upgrade path versioning issues.

Fact remains, the existence of it in the epel repos continues to override a core rhel package... a policy violation.  

It was pointed out to me on irc that rhel's packaging doesn't include the browser plugin portion, so that part could well remain without conflict.

Comment 3 Rex Dieter 2009-06-05 12:54:16 UTC

For reference, the policy I refer to is: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy

"EPEL packages should only enhance and never disturb the Enterprise Linux distributions they were build for. Thus packages from EPEL should never replace packages from the target base distribution..."

So, unless I'm missing something, the path forward here is fairly simple and clear.

Comment 4 Rex Dieter 2009-06-05 13:15:28 UTC

Per maintainers preference, marking upgrade path issue as a blocker, pending policy clarifications.

Comment 5 Ralph Angenendt 2009-06-06 14:18:06 UTC

But do keep the browser plugin (which probably means that this has to be rebuilt from the RHEL version of openJDK).

Comment 6 Rex Dieter 2009-12-13 01:21:54 UTC

I guess this has been taken care of... closing.