Hi Simon, > No worries - getting things published definitely has priority.
I pressed 'publish' moments ago. \o/ > Yay! Though your reply did make me look more closely at something, and I don't entirely like what I found. What struck me is that between 1.15 and 1.44 there are a great many changes to the project, and essentially none of them touch the Java port. C-code surely is quite different from the Java code, and the code is punned to Unicode 3.2 so has little reason to move - but still: that's an awful lot of non-Java-change releases. It makes me doubt my earlier assumption that the Java port isn't a frozen-but-faithful twin of the C library; I'm now more inclined to believe that it's an independent ~2004 implementation by a different author, that may have drifted. So perhaps, some of those releases probably *should* have touched the Java side? I've still published 1.44 today. What's on Central is 1.15 from 2009, unsigned and without sources, so this is a clear improvement regardless. But it maybe should not be the last word. What do you think? Regards, Guus On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 5:28 PM Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote: > Guus der Kinderen <[email protected]> writes: > > > Hi Simon, > > > >> Yes I am happy if you can sign artifacts and make the upload. > > > > Thanks! > > > >> Are they reproducible? > > > > Not as things stand. The jar and javadoc tooling both embed timestamps. > > Fixable, but I'd rather leave it out of scope for now and get 1.44 out. > > > > What I built: the Java code from the 1.44 tarball, unmodified, recompiled > > with Java 8 for compatibility. > > No worries - getting things published definitely has priority. I don't > know about Java reproducible artifacts, or if anyone in the Central/Java > community cares. > > >> I suspect Java people aren't using *.JAR's from GNU tarballs, but get > >> things through Maven or other sites, though. > > > > That's exactly right, and the current situation isn't very good: Central > > has only 1.15 (2009) and 0.6.5 (2006): > > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.gnu.inet/libidn People can route > > around it with private repositories (e.g. > > https://igniterealtime.org/archiva/repository/maven/org/gnu/inet/libidn/ > ), > > which is unsigned and unofficial and not a real fix - and likely outdated > > too. Not having it in Central will effectively make it unavailable to > most > > developers. Getting 1.44 onto Central should sort it. > > Yay! > > /Simon >
