https://github.com/albfernandez/log4j/ is one fork I found that published a fixed copy on Maven Central. Confluent also publishes a forked copy, though I don't know where their source code is (package names are renamed as it's mainly used by old versions of Confluent's hosted services, so it's possible that the source code isn't published).
One of the key missing pieces I've seen in other forks so far is that they simply ripped a lot of affected code out of the library entirely which is sure to cause compatibility issues when attempted to be used as a drop-in replacement. At least the patched versions in RHEL and Debian are mainly used by other RHEL or Debian packages, so they already have their own compatibility policies. While I'd imagine Ceki is one of the only people in the world who could figure out how to update the old build, it'd also be great to respond to relevant threads about this while they're active rather than waiting until after the bell rings. As Christian said, if the work is done outside the ASF to get a full release working for 1.2.x, then I think we'd be more receptive to accepting it back and making a release, especially if there is continued community interest in it. Otherwise, I still believe it's more useful to patch up the existing v2/v1 compatibility system so that users can drop in v2 to upgrade things much more easily, especially given the intractability of many concurrency issues in v1 that are fairly unacceptable in modern Java applications. On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 12:18 PM Andrew Marlow <[email protected]> wrote: > > my comment is below: > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 14:23, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022, at 08:21, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > > As for infringing on the log4j trademark, I will rename the repo to > > > something else, for example "re4j". > > > > > > As mentioned in my previous message, if the ASF decides to integrate > > > "re4j" as log4j 1.x, the door is open. > > > > Thanks. You did not respond to my earlier question why this is so urgent > > after 10 years, > > but I guess we see what you are trying to do on the fork. > > > > If we feel this is valuable, we may vote again. Thanks for keeping that > > door open. I think working on a fork is the best way at this point of time. > > > > I want to add my thanks to Ceki as well. I would like to see log4j-v1 get > one fix in version 1.2.18 which RedHat have already made for RHEL7. It's > the one for the SocketServer issue. The source for this fix is out there > somewhere. I did track it down some time ago but I 've forgotten where I > found it. Maybe Matt knows where it is, then it could be applied to this > fork. > > > > Good luck. > > > > Kind regards, > > Christian > >
