> On 08/30/2010 07:33 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: > > I'm pretty sure there are a number of other reasons for such SIG. > > Our relationship with jpackage really needs to improve. They do a lot > of packaging work, we've "borrowed" a lot of that work, and then > diverged without contributing back, or even communicating with them. A > more tight relationship when possible between the jpackage version of a > package and ours, and the jpackage maintainer and ours would go a long > way to help.
I'm sorry to say that but jpackage isn't really active project nowadays. I'm all for colaboration whenever possible but currently Fedora has a newer and bigger Java stack and even more active contributors. There is one more big difference most of the active Fedora contributors are working on IDE or development related issues while jpackage has been working mainly on the server side things. So we don't even overlap that much as most people think (only some core packages). Additionally java packages with native parts are a no-go for JPackage and this strikes out all Eclipse related packages and contributors which is big part of our Java community. And there is nothing preventing JPackage maintainers that are Fedora contributors too(fnasser, dwalluck and so on) to take the changes back to JPackage. Getting new Maven was such a big PITA that I don't see myself even trying to do this thing again in another repo like JPackage which is behind Fedora for most of the dependencies. Let's collaborate but we should not put this as mandatory. If I want to get Eclipse up and running with all the plugins there is no point for me to try do even more work to get some of the deps in JPackage. Regards, Alex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
