Bug 812697

Summary: Missing deps on Fedora 17
Product: [Community] PressGang CCMS Reporter: Joshua Wulf <jwulf>
Component: CSProcessorAssignee: Lee Newson <lnewson>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact:
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 1.xCC: jwulf, lcarlon, sgordon
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: 0.23.1 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-06-07 01:30:22 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Joshua Wulf 2012-04-16 01:45:24 UTC
F17 doesn't package java-1.6.0-openjdk, only java-1.7.0-openjdk.


cspclient-0.23.0-1.noarch
OS: Fedora release 17

JAVA: java version "1.7.0_b147-icedtea"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (fedora-2.1.fc17.1-i386)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 22.0-b10, mixed mode)

Comment 1 Joshua Wulf 2012-04-16 01:53:31 UTC
Hackaround:

yumdownloader cspclient
sudo rpm -ivh --nodeps cspclient*.rpm

Comment 2 Lee Newson 2012-04-16 02:23:54 UTC
Fedora 17 isn't released yet, or in Beta (though that is tomorrow) so I see no need to support it at this current time.

Perhaps it may just be better to remove the dependency, since there isn't any decent way to use java dependencies and just force the user to install Java themselves.

Comment 3 Joshua Wulf 2012-04-16 03:00:53 UTC
The ideal way to support it would be to have different versions of the package with different dependencies for different OS versions.

I'm not sure how easy that is to automate. The easiest thing might be, as you say, to remove the java dependency in the meantime.

The F17 issue at the moment is only with clean installs, or F16 upgrades where 1.6.0 was not installed before the upgrade. Dlesage did the upgrade from F16, and the F16 java-1.6.0-openjdk package remains on his system.

Comment 4 Lee Newson 2012-04-16 03:04:38 UTC
The problem with that is that somethings work in one version of java that don't in another. Take the example of RHEL wanting to make the default Java SE 7, however that will cause issues as JBoss EAP5 has issues with Java SE 7.

Comment 5 Lee Newson 2012-04-16 03:08:22 UTC
Just adding that when Fedora 17 goes live Java SE 6 will be at the end of its life cycle. So when that happens it makes more sense to move the dependencies up so that the CSP needs Java SE 7 or higher. (This would also fix some issues where I've had to do workarounds to do things in SE 6 that are standard in SE 7)

Comment 6 Lee Newson 2012-04-16 03:23:27 UTC
Adding another positive of removing the java dependency:

By just installing a Java version it doesn't guarantee that, that'll be the version used when running the program, since that is normally setup through Environment Variables or symbolic links. So the only users who benefit from the dependency, are the users who don't have java installed.

Comment 7 Joshua Wulf 2012-04-16 03:49:43 UTC
I'll add something to the documentation: 

"Note: The Content Spec Processor client requires Java 1.6 or later. You should install a package that provides a Java 1.6 (or later) runtime and configure it using alternatives."

Comment 8 Stephen Gordon 2012-04-16 13:28:31 UTC
Is there a reason not to specify the dependency like this:

Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0

or, once support for 1.6.0 is phased out:

Requires: java >= 1:1.7.0

I'm assuming that at the moment you have a variation of the more specific (but less graceful when upgrading):

Requires: java-1.6.0-openjdk

More info in the java packaging guidelines here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires

Comment 9 Lee Newson 2012-04-16 22:38:15 UTC
Thanks for the info Steve. Your right that should work fine. I was under the impression that there wasn't a way to do that since the java packages are completely different packages and not just upgraded versions of the same package. I also had tried that but i didn't have the epoch so that would explain why that didn't work.

Anyways I'll do another build to fix this and one other issue regarding the builder and inline XML elements that popped up yesterday.

Comment 10 Lee Newson 2012-04-16 23:05:01 UTC
Fixed in 0.23.1

Comment 11 Lee Newson 2013-06-07 01:30:22 UTC
Closing and setting as current release as no QA was performed by the original reporter. If there is still an issue with this bug still than please re-open it.