Bug 1789695 - java-11 not listed alternatives
Summary: java-11 not listed alternatives
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: java-11-openjdk
Version: 30
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: jiri vanek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-01-10 07:54 UTC by customercare
Modified: 2020-05-26 18:09 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-05-26 18:09:11 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description customercare 2020-01-10 07:54:51 UTC
Description of problem:

On a server Java 8, 11 & 12 are installed, but only 8 and 12 are listed to choose which one is the alternative on:

# alternatives --config java

Es gibt 2 Programme, welche »java« zur Verfügung stellen.

  Auswahl    Befehl
-----------------------------------------------
*  1           java-1.8.0-openjdk.x86_64 (/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64/jre/bin/java)
 + 2           java-openjdk.x86_64 (/usr/lib/jvm/java-12-openjdk-12.0.0.33-1.ea.1.rolling.fc30.x86_64/bin/java)


I reinstalled both 11 rpms, but that did not help. 

before 12 was installed 8 and 11 were the only javas installed. 8 got listed, 11 was not listed. ( that lead to the install of 12 too compensate, as the app needed at least 11 to function ). 

is there any rescan of installed packages/version to enable 11 to be choosen or is it a real bug in the 11er version of java ?


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


java-11-openjdk-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64
java-11-openjdk-headless-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64
java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64
java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-1.ea.1.rolling.fc30.x86_64
java-openjdk-headless-12.0.0.33-1.ea.1.rolling.fc30.x86_64
javapackages-filesystem-5.3.0-4.fc30.noarch
rdt-java-8-6.x86_64
tzdata-java-2019c-1.fc30.noarch

Comment 1 customercare 2020-01-11 10:18:48 UTC
an hour after v12 got installed, v13 installed itself without user interaction. 

this resetted the java alternative back to 8 !!!

now we have: 8,11,12,13 installed and only 8 and 12 are shown in the "alternative --config java" cmd.

Very strange!

Comment 2 jiri vanek 2020-01-12 14:39:03 UTC
Hi!

First of all, please remove java-12-openjdk*. java-openjdk was removed in favour of java-latest-openjdk and it is jdk13 already. Jdk12 is dead.

Second, can you please  send output of `rpm -qa | grep java- | sort`  ?

In my case  rpm -qa | grep java- | sort
...
java-11-openjdk-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64
java-11-openjdk-devel-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64
java-11-openjdk-headless-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64
java-11-openjdk-jmods-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64
java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64
java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64
java-1.8.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.noarch
java-1.8.0-openjdk-src-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64
java-latest-openjdk-13.0.1.9-2.rolling.fc30.x86_64
java-latest-openjdk-devel-13.0.1.9-2.rolling.fc30.x86_64
java-latest-openjdk-headless-13.0.1.9-2.rolling.fc30.x86_64
java-runtime-decompiler-3.0-4.fc30.noarch
...

leads to correct:
 java -version
openjdk version "1.8.0_232"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_232-b09)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.232-b09, mixed mode)
 jvanek  jvanek  15:36:46  ~  $  javac -version
javac 1.8.0_232
 jvanek  jvanek  15:36:51  ~  $  alternatives --config java

There are 3 programs which provide 'java'.

  Selection    Command
-----------------------------------------------
   1           java-11-openjdk.x86_64 (/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64/bin/java)
*+ 2           java-1.8.0-openjdk.x86_64 (/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64/jre/bin/java)
   3           java-latest-openjdk.x86_64 (/usr/lib/jvm/java-13-openjdk-13.0.1.9-2.rolling.fc30.x86_64/bin/java)

Enter to keep the current selection[+], or type selection number: ^C      
 jvanek  jvanek  15:36:58  ~  $  alternatives --config javac

There are 3 programs which provide 'javac'.

  Selection    Command
-----------------------------------------------
*+ 1           java-1.8.0-openjdk.x86_64 (/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64/bin/javac)
   2           java-11-openjdk.x86_64 (/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64/bin/javac)
   3           java-latest-openjdk.x86_64 (/usr/lib/jvm/java-13-openjdk-13.0.1.9-2.rolling.fc30.x86_64/bin/javac)

Enter to keep the current selection[+], or type selection number: 



As for your first issue - maybe you hit the: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200302
As for second - while your alternatives are in auto, jdk8, as system jdk will be always preffered. Once you are in manual, yur choice is of course honoured.

Comment 3 customercare 2020-01-12 19:26:16 UTC
# rpm -qa | grep java- | sort
java-11-openjdk-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64
java-11-openjdk-headless-11.0.5.10-0.fc30.x86_64
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64
java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64
java-latest-openjdk-13.0.1.9-2.rolling.fc30.x86_64
java-latest-openjdk-headless-13.0.1.9-2.rolling.fc30.x86_64
java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-4.rolling.fc30.x86_64
java-openjdk-headless-12.0.0.33-4.rolling.fc30.x86_64
rdt-java-8-6.x86_64
tzdata-java-2019c-1.fc30.noarch

Comment 4 customercare 2020-01-12 19:42:36 UTC
Java 12 got removed, 13 is still on. after removal, 8 was default again, and 11 not listed .. 


]# alternatives --list
jre_1.8.0_openjdk     	auto  	/usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64
cifs-idmap-plugin     	auto  	/usr/lib64/cifs-utils/cifs_idmap_sss.so
java                  	manual	/usr/lib/jvm/java-13-openjdk-13.0.1.9-2.rolling.fc30.x86_64/bin/java


Java seems to be in manual mode.. but it does not stay with the selection, even if the selected version is not touched.

With 13 installed and the app running fine, i will remove 11 as it's no longer needed, "solving" the problem for me. Or shall we invest that one further, would not hurt me.

Comment 5 Severin Gehwolf 2020-01-13 14:02:21 UTC
Did you run 'dnf reinstall' on any java-XX-openjdk packages by any chance? If so, this is probably a duplicate of bug 1355687.

Comment 6 customercare 2020-01-13 14:16:23 UTC
it's possible that for the exact reason of solving the alternative problem, a reinstall on the previous F29 had happend.

Comment 7 Ben Cotton 2020-04-30 20:33:22 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 30 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 30 on 2020-05-26.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '30'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 30 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 8 Ben Cotton 2020-05-26 18:09:11 UTC
Fedora 30 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2020-05-26. Fedora 30 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.