I do not see why this topic should involve the FPC.

IMO, these packages are arbitrary, ordinary packages, which are subject to the packaging rules applied elsewhere. The fact they contain compat/legacy contents doesn't matter at all.

Seconded. Mikołaj's suggestion to decouple the virtual java(-devel) Provides: into their own package would solve all the issues, but that's still within current guidelines.

Thirded. If there is something specific in the Java guidelines that needs to change, I don't see it. If there's something that needs to be added, please let us know what that would be and if possible provide a draft upon which we can vote.

I had finally logged in. Don't know why it was not possible yesterday.

Even if we all incline to Mikolaj's solution, still guidelines will be needed.

Current fight is between -legacy suffix in name which is imho much better and celaner and metapackage with provides.

Still :
rule 2 is moreover agree by all.
rule 3 was not discussed by anybody == is ok

rule 4 was considered only once as to strict, except that seems ok.
rule 5 and 7 were discussed only shortly without any clear result.

rule 6 depends whether metapackage or -legacy will win. For metapackage have no real sense.

So in any case, some guideline - based on those 7 rules will be need for packagingfguidelines.

I will summary main benefits and negatives of metapackage/-legacy approach in teh devel thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208270.html

done
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208563.html

We didn't have time to discuss this in depth at today's meeting, but I have a couple of comments.

Is this just about package naming? Could someone make a proposal so that FPC can actually have a vote? I don't think we'd oppose any reasonable naming proposal.

If this isn't about naming, could you try to explain just what you'd like for us to decide? I can't see anything else that falls within our area of concern.

We discussed this at today's meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-03-12/fpc.2015-03-12-17.00.txt):

• 503 Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora (geppetto, 17:05:47)

• LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/503 (geppetto, 17:05:47)
• ACTION: Someone needs to make a draft of what you'd like us to vote
  on, like recommended package naming. (geppetto, 17:08:48)

The proposal was the draft - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora . Now it is waiting for proof of concept.

I don't see any proposed changes to the packaging guidelines. I see an FESCo change ticket, but that's for FESCo, not FPC.

Please provide the exact text you would like to see added or changed from the current packaging guidelines. It's easiest if you copy the source of the existing guideline page to a personal page and edit that so we can see a diff. In other words, please make it easy for us to see what you want added/changed so that we can address it directly.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jvanek/Changes/LegacyJDKsInFedora ???

This link is there since I withdraw the change. Still Do not hurry with it. The proof of concept is sitl missing.

So it's been another six weeks. Is there anything FPC can do here?

I'm going to go ahead and close this out to get it off of our work list; feel free to reopen if you would like to pursue this in the future.