Replace Debian Java requirement with an available version [DI-337] #240
Conversation
In #195, Debian was _intended_ to upgrade it's dependant JRE to `21` - but the JDK specified does not exist (`docker run --interactive --rm debian:stable bash -c "apt-get update && apt list | grep jdk"`) Instead we should request the _latest_ JDK which currently is `17` (`docker run --interactive --rm debian:stable bash -c "apt-get update && apt-get install -y default-jdk-headless && java -version"`). Fixes: #237
| @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Section: imdg | |||
| Priority: optional | |||
| Architecture: all | |||
| Conflicts: ${CONFLICTS} | |||
| Depends: java21-sdk-headless | |||
| Depends: java21-sdk-headless | default-jdk-headless | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if default-jdk-headless ends up being beyond JDK21 when they finally update?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If there is no java21-sdk-headless, there are various outcomes:
- we don't specify a fallback
default-jdk-headless(current behaviour), you can't use Hazelcast (👎) - we specify a fallback
default-jdk-headless- it's older
- it's too old, Hazelcast doesn't work (👎)
- it's old, but not too old (e.g.
17) - Hazelcast works (👍)
- it's
21- Hazelcast works (👍) - it's newer
- (say)
22is close enough - Hazelcast works (👍) - it's too new (say
99), Hazelcast doesn't work (👎)
- (say)
- it's older
At least this way there's a chance it works.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At least this way there's a chance it works.
Yes totally agree but if its >21 than this will break our Java policy and if it doesn't work then we are back to current situation
Wondering why this was not flagged with PR builder or something? Not sure I fully grasp #237. Is this compile or runtime issue?
I think if we can't guarantee default-jdk-headless will confirm to our Java policy than may be just use JDK17?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At least this way there's a chance it works.
Yes totally agree but if its
>21than this will break our Java policy and if it doesn't work then we are back to current situation
The other alternatives are that:
- We don't list a JDK as a prerequisite and let the users install it themselves
- We leave as-is and Debian is broken until they include JDK21 (which might be a while)
Wondering why this was not flagged with PR builder or something?
Because we test our Debian packages on Ubuntu, where there is ajava21-sdk-headless.
I'm investigating this seperately.
Not sure I fully grasp #237. Is this compile or runtime issue?
It's an installation issue (which I guess for this project would be defined as runtime).
When you install Hazelcast, it should install the listed prerequisites as well. But they aren't available, so the installation fails.
I think if we can't guarantee
default-jdk-headlesswill confirm to our Java policy than may be just use JDK17?
But then our JDKs are inconsistent between platforms... (no right answers here).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But then our JDKs are inconsistent between platforms... (no right answers here).
Yes very true.
May be Depends: java21-sdk-headless | java17-sdk-headless so its pinned either way?
In Docker we don't set default and I assume we will update all JDK usages when we update our Java policy
Just wondering if there a way to install JDk21 from a different location?
I am just giving my novice 2 cents so lets see what @ldziedziul has to say.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just wondering if there a way to install JDk21 from a different location?
There is, but as it's not via apt I don't think you can tag it as a pre-requisite the same way so not useful for our purposes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Needs backporting?
Yes - already in the description.
JackPGreen
changed the title
|
@ldziedziul are you able to take a look at this, please? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The other alternatives are that:
We don't list a JDK as a prerequisite and let the users install it themselves
We leave as-is and Debian is broken until they include JDK21 (which might be a while)
These options break user experience completely.
I think that default-jdk-headless as a fallback makes sense, and usually we end up with version between it's old, but not too old and it's new, but not too new which IMHO is acceptable. But I think the final decision should be agreed with @ElysePrid-Hazel. Also this brings the question if we should mentions this quirk in the docs
EDIT: One other idea would be to simply support ubuntu not debian
|
I think for this scenario we should go ahead and add the fallback, it adds more value than not and the work is completed. |
In #195, Debian was intended to upgrade it's dependant JRE to
21- but the JDK specified does not exist (docker run --interactive --rm debian:stable bash -c "apt-get update && apt list | grep jdk")Instead we should request the latest JDK which currently is
17(docker run --interactive --rm debian:stable bash -c "apt-get update && apt-get install -y default-jdk-headless && java -version").Fixes: #237, DI-337
Post-merge action: