Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1499683 .
The packager of java-9-openjdk has pushed an update for F27 stable which turns a directory into a symlink, without implementing the recommended scriptlet-based workaround for doing this correctly. Thus updates of this package cause errors.
I'd like to ask FPC whether this is acceptable in the circumstances (the maintainer's post at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/F2PMT36KTVIIBCSPVSHCFJQZKEY6VR6R/ contains a justification for this) or whether the scriptlet-based workaround, or some other change to make updates from earlier versions of the package work correctly, must be added.
It's not, not even in rawhide. This is described in the Packaging Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Replacing_a_symlink_to_a_directory_or_a_directory_to_any_type_file which links to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Directory_Replacement , where it's described in greater detail along with a ready-to-use template LUA scriptlet. I don't understand Jiri's reluctance to use it. The scriptlet must be added in my opinion. Breaking updates on purpose is not acceptable, especially if a documented solution exists.
Please see the scriplets JDK is already carrying to understand my reluctance to add more.
In addition, there were simialr issues with older jdk (in stable), and I always added a handling sciplet. In jdk6 was about 3 levels of sciplets dealing with varous fatal changes iin javaws.
If such a change is not acceptable even in rawhide, is puttin out question whether rawhide have any more sense.
So this is still just sitting here. rathann's comment was correct and answered the question, and FPC has no enforcement powers so there really isn't anything else we can do. Plus after six months, if it was left broken then I guess everyone has long since dealt with the brokenness.
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue close_status updated to: nothingtodo - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
yes, all six users dealt with it.
Again, sorry for that, IN scope of java-openjdk (jdk10) it was rerally good step.
Thankyou for closin,g, and really sorry for troubles.
Login to comment on this ticket.