+1

-1 for now

and also quite horrified by the adoptium-temurin-java-repository RPM scriptlets

-1 for now

and also quite horrified by the adoptium-temurin-java-repository RPM scriptlets

Why are you so horrified? They check the /usr/lib/jvm, and if you have any no-longer supported jdk, they warn you.

Hello! There is actually one reason why to do this. It i nto written in proposal, as I found it due fixing the remaining parts of javastack (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java21RemovedEarlierThenScheduled#Detailed_Description). Two system JDKs had an expeced impact, which needed maintainers attention: I hit at least three packages, which were pulling both jdk25 (depndencies' deps) and jdk21 (its own BR). That by default led to usage of jdk25, which led to FTBFS.
The only bug on the fly was not enough interest of packager, becasue if such case happened, an manual intervention was needed (had tried, all three were easy to fix) to continue building with jdk21. I'm not sure if this will have any impact on addition o jdk29, but it seems that sooner we get rid of jdk21, the better.

-1 for now

and also quite horrified by the adoptium-temurin-java-repository RPM scriptlets

Why are you so horrified? They check the /usr/lib/jvm, and if you have any no-longer supported jdk, they warn you.

Because ... that's just not what RPM scriptlets should be used for? User-facing documentation like that goes into the Release Notes, not into log files that 100% of users that use the recommended update methods will never see.

-1 for now

and also quite horrified by the adoptium-temurin-java-repository RPM scriptlets

Why are you so horrified? They check the /usr/lib/jvm, and if you have any no-longer supported jdk, they warn you.

Because ... that's just not what RPM scriptlets should be used for? User-facing documentation like that goes into the Release Notes, not into log files that 100% of users that use the recommended update methods will never see.

And isn't it already happening? Aka the Fxx-change is considered as user facing documentation, right? As for the dnf logs, consider it as another frontier. But eg myself is reading the dnf trasnaction logs always. And I'm developer. I can not imagine admin not reading dnf logs. I got your point, but I hope the documentation and publicity is really handled by proposals and related discussions. So unless there is strong opposition, I'm going to keep the scriplets..

Update:
The Headless packages were approved by Adoptium steering committee, and final PR is to all live jds is published and under testing. We all expect the headless subpkgs will land already in March release

We discussed this during today's meeting (log starting at ~18:37 UTC).

It appears that the mechanism for "printing" deprecation warnings in the adoptium-temurin-java-repository RPM package scriptlets is 1) either against the Packaging Guidelines (or should be), and 2) unnecessary, since the packages it warns about are already Obsoletesd and removed on upgrade.

Additionally, scriptlet output is either hidden in transaction output or dnf5 logs, and invisible for any user who uses the officially documented / supported upgrade methods (GNOME Software, Discover, dnf offline upgrade), if the scriptlets have an effect at all (for example, on rpm-ostree based systems).

We will discuss this topic again during next week's meeting.

We discussed this during today's meeting (log starting at ~18:37 UTC).

It appears that the mechanism for "printing" deprecation warnings in the adoptium-temurin-java-repository RPM package scriptlets is 1) either against the Packaging Guidelines (or should be), and 2) unnecessary, since the packages it warns about are already Obsoletesd and removed on upgrade.

The (2) is incorrect. If eg this proposal will be agreed, then the warning will be printed in f42 and f43, but the obsolete line will be present only in f44.

Additionally, scriptlet output is either hidden in transaction output or dnf5 logs, and invisible for any user who uses the officially documented / supported upgrade methods (GNOME Software, Discover, dnf offline upgrade), if the scriptlets have an effect at all (for example, on rpm-ostree based systems).

That is again incorrect. The dnf update from command-line is still very popular, especially if you count indirect calls. I do not know (personally) the single admin who would be doing udpates differently then in terminal.

Note, that the warning is not printed solemnly in system upgrade (eg from f43 to f44) but during any update which have adoptium-temurin-java-repository in transaction. Which will be long before f44, as I would adjust

-  local jdksKnown={"1.8.0", "11", "17"}
+ local jdksKnown={"1.8.0", "11", "17", "21"}

like lines long before f44 release date (and also in f42 adn f43 specfiles). So people will be warned, before f44 rolls out, and theirs jdk21 will be obsoleted.

We will discuss this topic again during next week's meeting.

Please separate the scripltes from the main topic. If you guys will find them really harmful, I will remove them without much complaining. But keep in mind, that I really got an positive feedback on them. And I keep insisting that to warn about the removal in f42 and 43 is better, then just obsolete it in f43->f44 update and be done.

That is again incorrect.

It's not though.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-new-release/#_can_i_upgrade_between_fedora_linux_releases_using_only_dnf

In general, with the Adoptium Temurin OpenJDK packages getting headless variants "soon", and almost all packages being able to move to OpenJDK 17, I am +1 to the "earlier than planned" retirement of OpenJDK 21 from the Fedora repos.

But I would also strongly be in favor of dropping the scriptlets from the repo package entirely.

I've also filed a request for clarification to the packaging guidelines:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1518

That is again incorrect.

It's not though.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-new-release/#_can_i_upgrade_between_fedora_linux_releases_using_only_dnf

Sure. But the messages are (should!) be present in every dnf trasnacion where adoptium-temurin-java-repository, so also during usual dnf update, not only during system upgrade to new version/

Sure. But the messages are (should!) be present in every dnf trasnacion where adoptium-temurin-java-repository, so also during usual dnf update, not only during system upgrade to new version/

I don't understand wow is this supposed to work. The old OpenJDK packages are Obsoleted - so they are removed, and after that point, no more deprecation warnings will get printed?

+1 to the "earlier than planned" retirement of OpenJDK 21 from the Fedora repos too

This issue will be discussed at the next meeting on 2026-01-20

+1

+1 for the change, keeping the scriplet discussion independent.

AGREED: (+9, 0, -0) FESCo approves this Change Proposal, noting
that the use of scriptlet for notification is subject to the FPC review
of https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1518

Announced in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IXPVJMEORBD34ZVW3C43WTUK6NR3SC6H/