Docs/quick-docs
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 48 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Fix docs for oracle java installation. #122

Merged
ryanlerch merged 1 commit from fix-oracle-java-docs into master 2019-04-15 13:07:20 +00:00
Conversation 16 Commits 1 Files changed 1 +4 -4
zzambers commented 2019-03-27 14:50:15 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Changed installation instructions of Oracle Java to use tar.gz instead of rpms. Their rpms do not work correctly with fedora/openjdk packages.

Changed installation instructions of Oracle Java to use tar.gz instead of rpms. Their rpms do not work correctly with fedora/openjdk packages.
zzambers commented 2019-03-27 20:15:32 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy link

I have found this page, which also says how to add Oracle JDK into alternatives:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JDK_on_Fedora#Installing_Oracle_JDK_on_Fedora

I have found this page, which also says how to add Oracle JDK into alternatives: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JDK_on_Fedora#Installing_Oracle_JDK_on_Fedora
jflory7 commented 2019-03-28 14:45:58 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Metadata Update from @jflory7:

  • Pull-request tagged with: improvement, needs committer review
**Metadata Update from @jflory7**: - Pull-request tagged with: improvement, needs committer review
ankursinha commented 2019-04-05 11:48:06 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

@zzambers : can you point to a reference that documents the issue with the rpms please? I've got them installed and they seem to work just fine.

In general, the rpms are preferred because they make removing the package much easier.

@zzambers : can you point to a reference that documents the issue with the rpms please? I've got them installed and they seem to work just fine. In general, the rpms are preferred because they make removing the package much easier.
ankursinha commented 2019-04-05 11:48:14 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Metadata Update from @ankursinha:

  • Pull-request tagged with: needs info
**Metadata Update from @ankursinha**: - Pull-request tagged with: needs info
jvanek commented 2019-04-08 10:54:34 +00:00
First-time contributor
Copy link

@zzambers : can you point to a reference that documents the issue with the rpms please? I've got them installed and they seem to work just fine.
In general, the rpms are preferred because they make removing the package much easier.

And do you have also system jdk installed?

On my system, installing oracle rpms lead to broken alternatives

> @zzambers : can you point to a reference that documents the issue with the rpms please? I've got them installed and they seem to work just fine. > In general, the rpms are preferred because they make removing the package much easier. And do you have also system jdk installed? On my system, installing oracle rpms lead to broken alternatives
jvanek commented 2019-04-08 10:55:43 +00:00
First-time contributor
Copy link

I have found this page, which also says how to add Oracle JDK into alternatives:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JDK_on_Fedora#Installing_Oracle_JDK_on_Fedora

That page should be removed. It is incredibly old.

> I have found this page, which also says how to add Oracle JDK into alternatives: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JDK_on_Fedora#Installing_Oracle_JDK_on_Fedora That page should be removed. It is incredibly old.
ankursinha commented 2019-04-08 11:29:17 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

I have found this page, which also says how to add Oracle JDK into alternatives:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JDK_on_Fedora#Installing_Oracle_JDK_on_Fedora

That page should be removed. It is incredibly old.

It is one of the many old wiki pages, hence moving reviewed information to quick-docs.

> > I have found this page, which also says how to add Oracle JDK into alternatives: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JDK_on_Fedora#Installing_Oracle_JDK_on_Fedora > > That page should be removed. It is incredibly old. It is one of the many old wiki pages, hence moving reviewed information to quick-docs.
ankursinha commented 2019-04-08 11:31:32 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

@zzambers : can you point to a reference that documents the issue with the rpms please? I've got them installed and they seem to work just fine.
In general, the rpms are preferred because they make removing the package much easier.

And do you have also system jdk installed?

$ rpm -qa \*jre\* \*java\*
java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1.8.0.201.b09-6.fc29.x86_64
android-json-org-java-6.0.1-0.5.r22.fc29.noarch
java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-1.8.0.201.b09-6.fc29.x86_64
jre1.8-1.8.0_191-fcs.x86_64  -> oracle java
javamail-1.6.3-3.module_f29+2697+412960d8.noarch
java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.201.b09-6.fc29.x86_64
ant-javamail-1.10.5-2.fc29.noarch
javapackages-tools-5.3.0-1.fc29.noarch
abrt-java-connector-1.1.1-2.fc29.x86_64
tzdata-java-2018i-1.fc29.noarch
antlr3-java-3.5.2-19.fc29.noarch
python3-javapackages-5.3.0-1.fc29.noarch
javapackages-filesystem-5.3.0-1.fc29.noarch
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.201.b09-6.fc29.x86_64

Maybe because I have jre and not jdk? No problem here in daily usage.

On my system, installing oracle rpms lead to broken alternatives

> > @zzambers : can you point to a reference that documents the issue with the rpms please? I've got them installed and they seem to work just fine. > In general, the rpms are preferred because they make removing the package much easier. > > And do you have also system jdk installed? ``` $ rpm -qa \*jre\* \*java\* java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1.8.0.201.b09-6.fc29.x86_64 android-json-org-java-6.0.1-0.5.r22.fc29.noarch java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-1.8.0.201.b09-6.fc29.x86_64 jre1.8-1.8.0_191-fcs.x86_64 -> oracle java javamail-1.6.3-3.module_f29+2697+412960d8.noarch java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.201.b09-6.fc29.x86_64 ant-javamail-1.10.5-2.fc29.noarch javapackages-tools-5.3.0-1.fc29.noarch abrt-java-connector-1.1.1-2.fc29.x86_64 tzdata-java-2018i-1.fc29.noarch antlr3-java-3.5.2-19.fc29.noarch python3-javapackages-5.3.0-1.fc29.noarch javapackages-filesystem-5.3.0-1.fc29.noarch java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.201.b09-6.fc29.x86_64 ``` Maybe because I have jre and not jdk? No problem here in daily usage. > On my system, installing oracle rpms lead to broken alternatives
jvanek commented 2019-04-08 15:52:27 +00:00
First-time contributor
Copy link

That is interesting. It hsould not be devel related.. but I will try. Had you done any other steps instead of simple dnf install some.rpm?

That is interesting. It hsould not be devel related.. but I will try. Had you done any other steps instead of simple dnf install some.rpm?
ankursinha commented 2019-04-08 16:06:10 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

No, not really. Installed the rpm, and I think updated the alternatives.

Please note that my use case is very small---I only use java for Jabref (which requires openjfx bits that aren't in Fedora now). So maybe I just don't see the breakages that you people see in advanced usage?

No, not really. Installed the rpm, and I think updated the alternatives. Please note that my use case is very small---I only use java for Jabref (which requires openjfx bits that aren't in Fedora now). So maybe I just don't see the breakages that you people see in advanced usage?
jvanek commented 2019-04-09 12:34:16 +00:00
First-time contributor
Copy link

I see. Nvm. Still users should be warned to isntall oracle jdk instead of encouraged. TBH, currently there is no reason to do so those days. Can we merge now please?

I see. Nvm. Still users should be warned to isntall oracle jdk instead of encouraged. TBH, currently there is no reason to do so those days. Can we merge now please?
ankursinha commented 2019-04-09 14:48:23 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

@zzambers : would you add a warning to the page please as @jvanek suggests?

If the JDK bit is correct, would you be able to remove the "unreviewed warning" at the top of the page? That'll make this page ready for use.

@zzambers : would you add a warning to the page please as @jvanek suggests? If the JDK bit is correct, would you be able to remove the "unreviewed warning" at the top of the page? That'll make this page ready for use.
ankursinha commented 2019-04-09 14:49:08 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Metadata Update from @ankursinha:

  • Request assigned
**Metadata Update from @ankursinha**: - Request assigned
ankursinha commented 2019-04-09 14:49:27 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Metadata Update from @ankursinha:

  • Pull-request untagged with: needs committer review, needs info
**Metadata Update from @ankursinha**: - Pull-request **un**tagged with: needs committer review, needs info
ankursinha commented 2019-04-15 13:07:06 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Merging, this. I'll remove the unreviewed warning from the page now.

Merging, this. I'll remove the unreviewed warning from the page now.
ankursinha commented 2019-04-15 13:07:20 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Pull-Request has been merged by ankursinha

Pull-Request has been merged by ankursinha
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
bug

Something isn't working

  
Closed As
complete
Closed with the reason of complete

  
Closed As
duplicate
Closed with the reason of duplicate

  
Closed As
insufficient data
Closed with the reason of insufficient data

  
Closed As
moved
Closed with the reason of moved

  
Closed As
not possible
Closed with the reason of not possible

  
Closed As
out of scope
Closed with the reason of out of scope

  
Closed As
stale
Closed with the reason of stale

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers (if you want to get involved, try working on one of these!)

  
help wanted

Anyone is welcome to help us with this!

  
improvement

Improves on something that already exists

  
needs changes

Needs changes or fixes before closing

  
needs committer review

Needs review by a person with committer privileges or a subject-matter expert (SME)

  
needs info

Extra attention or information needed

  
new change

Adds new capabilities or functionality

  
Priority
awaiting triage
Priority of awaiting triage

  
Priority
needs review
Priority of needs review

  
Priority
next meeting
Priority of next meeting

  
Priority
waiting on assignee
Priority of waiting on assignee

  
Priority
waiting on external
Priority of waiting on external

No labels
bug
Closed As
complete
Closed As
duplicate
Closed As
insufficient data
Closed As
moved
Closed As
not possible
Closed As
out of scope
Closed As
stale
good first issue
help wanted
improvement
needs changes
needs committer review
needs info
new change
Priority
awaiting triage
Priority
needs review
Priority
next meeting
Priority
waiting on assignee
Priority
waiting on external
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Docs/quick-docs#122
No description provided.
Delete branch "fix-oracle-java-docs"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?