Re: pdfbox and batik (was: Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?)
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:31 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > As an example of the sorry state of the Java SIG, pdfbox and batik were > orphaned 2 weeks ago, but those are dependencies of fop, which is a > dependency of publican, which is used by appstream to build documentation, > and half of the distribution (including the entire KF5 stack, through > extra- > cmake-modules) depends on appstream. > > Java is not an isolated island (despite its name ;-) ). Most Java stuff > can > be done without (and upstream JARs used instead), but the dependencies of > non-Java packages MUST be taken care of by somebody. > The world is still waiting for the next Java hero to appear :( . > > Kevin Kofler > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse Team ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
pdfbox and batik (was: Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?)
As an example of the sorry state of the Java SIG, pdfbox and batik were orphaned 2 weeks ago, but those are dependencies of fop, which is a dependency of publican, which is used by appstream to build documentation, and half of the distribution (including the entire KF5 stack, through extra- cmake-modules) depends on appstream. Java is not an isolated island (despite its name ;-) ). Most Java stuff can be done without (and upstream JARs used instead), but the dependencies of non-Java packages MUST be taken care of by somebody. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 4:54 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 09:17, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:08:02 -0800, you wrote: > > > > >On 11/18/19 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > >> I can't speak for everyone, but at least my experience was that it was > > >> functionally impossible to discover how to package Java stuff. In a > > >> lifetime (and a job) ago, I was much more engaged in the Java > > >> ecosystem. Back then, I tried to learn how to package and ship Java > > >> stuff in Fedora. But the documentation was (and still is) incredibly > > >> poor. I only managed to package one library, and it was not easy for > > >> me to figure out how to do it. The amount of effort I expended to do > > >> it put me off to doing more in the Java ecosystem. > > > > > >Maybe I misunderstood the earlier comment. I understand that Java can > > >be difficult to package, but I thought Gerald was saying that using > > >modules somehow made it easier. > > > > I have no idea whether modules make it easier or not. > > > > My point was that the Java SIG collapsed long before the modules > > became an issue, so "rebooting" the Java SIG isn't going to change > > anything unless those calling for the reboot come up with packagers > > for the Java ecosystem. > > > > Let us be clear here.. Java and Fedora have never done well. The > original 'Everything must be broken into separate parts and > integrated' vs 'the ecosystem bundles everything' was with Java and > made anyone working with Java in Fedora grind teeth on either being > way behind on some software or not having it all in Fedora. The > problem is that work was unmaintainable especially when the entire > ecosystem is built around having bundles of software where you only > needed 1-2 classes from a specific zip. Then there is a bunch of stuff > in these languages where you need to rebuild things in a specific > order or multiple times or a dozen other things using tools you need > but no one is maintaining. The original SIG was a bunch of hero > maintainers who said 'ok I am going to make this happen' and put in a > hell of an effort to get a lot of stuff unbundled and integrated. [At > the time in I think Fedora 8-10 timeframe, there was a large push by > certain people to get rid of all Java from the OS because it could not > be properly integrated. ] > > Over time these hero's burnt out just like the hero's who have > maintained perl, php, TeX, Nodejs, and many other stacks have. > Modules are basically a last gasp for them to trying to keep this > maintainable for the last hero maintainers. They allow for you to spec > out a lot of grunt work of building X before Y so you can rebuild Y > with X. They allow you to say I needed this thing but I am not > maintaining it so I am not shipping it... if someone will take it over > I can remove that hidden part but I don't have time to keep this up. > > It isn't just a matter of trying to build a team to maintain these... > it is a lot of work dealing with things volunteer packagers* don't > have time for: > o) Documenting each package > o) Documenting how to break apart X into usable rpm packages > o) Writing scripts to try and automate that in the rpmbuild parts > o) Deal with the fact that every upstream software is slightly > different (aka perl Makefile.pl output is never the same) > o) Keep up with the fact that every other upstream release has > decided to add N dependencies which are either not in Fedora or not > the version in Fedora. > > Doing this with a team means a lot of time coordinating with each > other. That means spending a lot of time in meetings with each other > or ending getting burnt too many times with Packager B updating Y > which breaks your Z. [Modular streams are supposed to help you on > this.. but it just makes it a combinatoric headache you have to deal > with even more meetings to keep from happening.] Most volunteers don't > like meetings, and they usually don't have time for them.. so we end > up with a very fractured space. Most of the problems we are seeing > with modules are from fractures already there but only shown when > FTBFS happened in the past. > > * I am going to be very clear here. Even if Red Hat pays someone a > salary, most of our work on Fedora is volunteer time. Our main job is > probably only related to the packages we put in by the fact we need it > to complete said job. We usually don't have time to much more than > people who have weekends on something. > Couldn't have expressed better what I think !!! > > > > -- > Stephen J Smoogen. > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: >
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 09:17, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:08:02 -0800, you wrote: > > >On 11/18/19 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> I can't speak for everyone, but at least my experience was that it was > >> functionally impossible to discover how to package Java stuff. In a > >> lifetime (and a job) ago, I was much more engaged in the Java > >> ecosystem. Back then, I tried to learn how to package and ship Java > >> stuff in Fedora. But the documentation was (and still is) incredibly > >> poor. I only managed to package one library, and it was not easy for > >> me to figure out how to do it. The amount of effort I expended to do > >> it put me off to doing more in the Java ecosystem. > > > >Maybe I misunderstood the earlier comment. I understand that Java can > >be difficult to package, but I thought Gerald was saying that using > >modules somehow made it easier. > > I have no idea whether modules make it easier or not. > > My point was that the Java SIG collapsed long before the modules > became an issue, so "rebooting" the Java SIG isn't going to change > anything unless those calling for the reboot come up with packagers > for the Java ecosystem. > Let us be clear here.. Java and Fedora have never done well. The original 'Everything must be broken into separate parts and integrated' vs 'the ecosystem bundles everything' was with Java and made anyone working with Java in Fedora grind teeth on either being way behind on some software or not having it all in Fedora. The problem is that work was unmaintainable especially when the entire ecosystem is built around having bundles of software where you only needed 1-2 classes from a specific zip. Then there is a bunch of stuff in these languages where you need to rebuild things in a specific order or multiple times or a dozen other things using tools you need but no one is maintaining. The original SIG was a bunch of hero maintainers who said 'ok I am going to make this happen' and put in a hell of an effort to get a lot of stuff unbundled and integrated. [At the time in I think Fedora 8-10 timeframe, there was a large push by certain people to get rid of all Java from the OS because it could not be properly integrated. ] Over time these hero's burnt out just like the hero's who have maintained perl, php, TeX, Nodejs, and many other stacks have. Modules are basically a last gasp for them to trying to keep this maintainable for the last hero maintainers. They allow for you to spec out a lot of grunt work of building X before Y so you can rebuild Y with X. They allow you to say I needed this thing but I am not maintaining it so I am not shipping it... if someone will take it over I can remove that hidden part but I don't have time to keep this up. It isn't just a matter of trying to build a team to maintain these... it is a lot of work dealing with things volunteer packagers* don't have time for: o) Documenting each package o) Documenting how to break apart X into usable rpm packages o) Writing scripts to try and automate that in the rpmbuild parts o) Deal with the fact that every upstream software is slightly different (aka perl Makefile.pl output is never the same) o) Keep up with the fact that every other upstream release has decided to add N dependencies which are either not in Fedora or not the version in Fedora. Doing this with a team means a lot of time coordinating with each other. That means spending a lot of time in meetings with each other or ending getting burnt too many times with Packager B updating Y which breaks your Z. [Modular streams are supposed to help you on this.. but it just makes it a combinatoric headache you have to deal with even more meetings to keep from happening.] Most volunteers don't like meetings, and they usually don't have time for them.. so we end up with a very fractured space. Most of the problems we are seeing with modules are from fractures already there but only shown when FTBFS happened in the past. * I am going to be very clear here. Even if Red Hat pays someone a salary, most of our work on Fedora is volunteer time. Our main job is probably only related to the packages we put in by the fact we need it to complete said job. We usually don't have time to much more than people who have weekends on something. -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:08:02 -0800, you wrote: >On 11/18/19 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> I can't speak for everyone, but at least my experience was that it was >> functionally impossible to discover how to package Java stuff. In a >> lifetime (and a job) ago, I was much more engaged in the Java >> ecosystem. Back then, I tried to learn how to package and ship Java >> stuff in Fedora. But the documentation was (and still is) incredibly >> poor. I only managed to package one library, and it was not easy for >> me to figure out how to do it. The amount of effort I expended to do >> it put me off to doing more in the Java ecosystem. > >Maybe I misunderstood the earlier comment. I understand that Java can >be difficult to package, but I thought Gerald was saying that using >modules somehow made it easier. I have no idea whether modules make it easier or not. My point was that the Java SIG collapsed long before the modules became an issue, so "rebooting" the Java SIG isn't going to change anything unless those calling for the reboot come up with packagers for the Java ecosystem. And one of the reasons few want to package Java stuff is that because for most of the Java stuff the users prefer to simply install the provided jdk/jre and then download the jar files from upstream, because by using official upstream provided jar files they can get help from upstream with any problems. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
On 11/18/19 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:34 PM Samuel Sieb wrote: On 11/18/19 3:40 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:37:39 +0100, you wrote: Fabio Valentini wrote: Or is it time for a "tabula rasa" and restart the SIG? IMHO, yes. Kick out the 1 or 2 Modularity fundamentalists that form the current remains of the Java SIG and create a new Java SIG from scratch that actually cares about packaging Java properly in and for (non-modular) Fedora. Great, you eliminate the remaining members of the Java SIG (those who didn't go running away because forcing Java stuff into RPMs was too painful). I've seen statements like this multiple times and I don't understand it. As far as I understand modularity, you're still creating rpms, so what's the difference? I'm just hoping for a simple answer here, not wanting to create another long thread like the other ones. I can't speak for everyone, but at least my experience was that it was functionally impossible to discover how to package Java stuff. In a lifetime (and a job) ago, I was much more engaged in the Java ecosystem. Back then, I tried to learn how to package and ship Java stuff in Fedora. But the documentation was (and still is) incredibly poor. I only managed to package one library, and it was not easy for me to figure out how to do it. The amount of effort I expended to do it put me off to doing more in the Java ecosystem. Maybe I misunderstood the earlier comment. I understand that Java can be difficult to package, but I thought Gerald was saying that using modules somehow made it easier. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:34 PM Samuel Sieb wrote: > > On 11/18/19 3:40 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:37:39 +0100, you wrote: > > > >> Fabio Valentini wrote: > >>> Or is it time for a "tabula rasa" and restart the SIG? > >> > >> IMHO, yes. Kick out the 1 or 2 Modularity fundamentalists that form the > >> current remains of the Java SIG and create a new Java SIG from scratch that > >> actually cares about packaging Java properly in and for (non-modular) > >> Fedora. > > > > Great, you eliminate the remaining members of the Java SIG (those who > > didn't go running away because forcing Java stuff into RPMs was too > > painful). > > I've seen statements like this multiple times and I don't understand it. > As far as I understand modularity, you're still creating rpms, so > what's the difference? I'm just hoping for a simple answer here, not > wanting to create another long thread like the other ones. I can't speak for everyone, but at least my experience was that it was functionally impossible to discover how to package Java stuff. In a lifetime (and a job) ago, I was much more engaged in the Java ecosystem. Back then, I tried to learn how to package and ship Java stuff in Fedora. But the documentation was (and still is) incredibly poor. I only managed to package one library, and it was not easy for me to figure out how to do it. The amount of effort I expended to do it put me off to doing more in the Java ecosystem. Nowadays, I'm mostly in the Python ecosystem, which has a much stronger packaging story. Heck, I think right now, the two major language ecosystems with bad packaging stories are Java and Go, for different reasons. Java's is because the whole packaging process and documentation is in major disrepair. Go's is because the language tooling sucks, and the lack of a solid foundation makes it difficult to make good packaging tooling for that ecosystem. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
On 11/18/19 3:40 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:37:39 +0100, you wrote: Fabio Valentini wrote: Or is it time for a "tabula rasa" and restart the SIG? IMHO, yes. Kick out the 1 or 2 Modularity fundamentalists that form the current remains of the Java SIG and create a new Java SIG from scratch that actually cares about packaging Java properly in and for (non-modular) Fedora. Great, you eliminate the remaining members of the Java SIG (those who didn't go running away because forcing Java stuff into RPMs was too painful). I've seen statements like this multiple times and I don't understand it. As far as I understand modularity, you're still creating rpms, so what's the difference? I'm just hoping for a simple answer here, not wanting to create another long thread like the other ones. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 18:40 -0500, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:37:39 +0100, you wrote: > > > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > Or is it time for a "tabula rasa" and restart the SIG? > > > > IMHO, yes. Kick out the 1 or 2 Modularity fundamentalists that form > > the > > current remains of the Java SIG and create a new Java SIG from > > scratch that > > actually cares about packaging Java properly in and for (non- > > modular) > > Fedora. > > Great, you eliminate the remaining members of the Java SIG (those who > didn't go running away because forcing Java stuff into RPMs was too > painful). As far as I understand those members want force users (java users) to use modules -- Sérgio M. B. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
- Original Message - > From: "Gerald Henriksen" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 6:40:54 PM > Subject: Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG? > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:37:39 +0100, you wrote: > > >Fabio Valentini wrote: > >> Or is it time for a "tabula rasa" and restart the SIG? > > > >IMHO, yes. Kick out the 1 or 2 Modularity fundamentalists that form the > >current remains of the Java SIG and create a new Java SIG from scratch that > >actually cares about packaging Java properly in and for (non-modular) > >Fedora. > > Great, you eliminate the remaining members of the Java SIG (those who > didn't go running away because forcing Java stuff into RPMs was too > painful). > > Now where are you going to get new members to create this new Java > SIG? > > I mean, the Java SIG isn't forcing Java packagers to use Modularity, > so that isn't why the Java SIG is dying. For historical context... Without Ursa Prime/Major/whatever we're calling it now, that's where we've been for the last... n > 6 months. If you depended on Ant, Maven, or any of the minor libraries they've modularized and put in their default module stream, the Java SIG's (un)official(?) policy was to have you modularize. Because that was the only way to use these packages! And if your runtime dependencies are in javapackages-tools? Good luck! You have to rebuild them inside your own module! It has entirely been the efforts of the Stewardship SIG to enable ursine users. We've done that by continuing to packaging many of the libraries that the Java SIG has either dropped entirely or made modular-only. For the last n > 6 months, packages such as LibreOffice and Dogtag have continued building only because we keep maintaining these packages as ursine. We did this in part to keep our own packages building and in part because we don't believe modular packages are a real answer to maintainership problems. Purely speculation on my part, but part of what likely caused the Java SIG to effectively dissolve was because each maintainer was an island, a hero. They maintained all their packages on their own; there is no "Java SIG" FAS packaging group. As Mikolaj has said, the meetings stopped, the mails stopped. People probably just quit working together. Part of what we've tried to do differently in the Stewardship SIG is encourage community and peer support. We're a FAS group and all our packages are owned by the collective group. We maintain public lists of what's in need of review [0], what we maintain [1], what we're looking for updates on [2], and what we're in the process of doing [3]. Anyone is free to contribute to the Stewardship SIG too! Fabio does a lot of work, and we're deeply thankful for that! But a few of us double check his work, help out on minimizing package dependencies as we get time, catch CVE updates, and perform rebases too. We're always looking for more members, and if you're interested in joining, just shoot a mail! Now, I do want to point out there are two faces to the Java SIG. There's the set of maintainers who maintain the soft underbelly of Java libraries. That's mostly Mikolaj now. People like gil and others, while at one point large Java package maintainers, have since moved on and their packages have been orphaned through the unresponsive maintainer process. I think the Eclipse team is part of that too. But it did seem rather uncoordinated, from the outside, the whole ant+maven causing Eclipse to modularize dance. But there's also the quiet maintainers of the JVM itself, who we're all grateful for their quiet work. They've not tried to modularize as far as I can tell. For all their hard work, we're thankful! We, the Stewardship SIG, have said before that if you need packages maintained that we're about to orphan, tell us! We'd keep them around and do our best to update them. We try not to orphan everything we have, we announce on the list and cc dependent package maintainers, and generally try to be good stewards of the community. We had offered in the past, on the list, to help Eclipse maintain whatever packages they needed to stay ursine, but that offer went unanswered. And if your application is major or critical to Fedora, like LibreOffice, Dogtag, or even Eclipse are, we'd be consider taking on new packages and maintaining them too, if they benefit the community. However, without new members and more time on our hands, I'm not sure how longer we'll be able to continue. Being brutally honest, Fabio does a LOT of work. We need a long term solution that doesn't leave all our ursine packages broken. Regardless of whether they're part of Fedora, existing only hidden, private networks of universities and corporations, or lurking in someone's COPR. - Alex [0]: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.or
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:37:39 +0100, you wrote: >Fabio Valentini wrote: >> Or is it time for a "tabula rasa" and restart the SIG? > >IMHO, yes. Kick out the 1 or 2 Modularity fundamentalists that form the >current remains of the Java SIG and create a new Java SIG from scratch that >actually cares about packaging Java properly in and for (non-modular) >Fedora. Great, you eliminate the remaining members of the Java SIG (those who didn't go running away because forcing Java stuff into RPMs was too painful). Now where are you going to get new members to create this new Java SIG? I mean, the Java SIG isn't forcing Java packagers to use Modularity, so that isn't why the Java SIG is dying. The only reason modularity is an issue is because no one else wants to maintain Java packages in the first place. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 13:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Or is it time for a "tabula rasa" and restart the SIG? > > IMHO, yes. Kick out the 1 or 2 Modularity fundamentalists that form > the > current remains of the Java SIG and create a new Java SIG from > scratch that > actually cares about packaging Java properly in and for (non- > modular) > Fedora. +1 is very strange that java want modularity since we can have various versions of java installed at same time I hope, never use modules for a very long time. > The current modules are missing a lot of Java software that users > care about > (e.g. NetBeans, etc. – some, such as NetBeans, had already been > retired > before Modularity became a thing, because the Java SIG had already > been > disintegrating back then, some was lost in the move to modules), have > put > Eclipse into a broken state, have simply replaced the adapted > JPackage > version of Maven (with RPM integration) with a vanilla upstream Maven > that > does not have this feature (I cannot see what advantage that change > brings), > etc. > > And I do not see at all what advantage end users would get from > those > packages being in modules. Both Maven and Ant are tools where you > normally > always want the latest version, there is not much value in being able > to > pick a specific version stream. > > Kevin Kofler > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Sérgio M. B. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
Fabio Valentini wrote: > Or is it time for a "tabula rasa" and restart the SIG? IMHO, yes. Kick out the 1 or 2 Modularity fundamentalists that form the current remains of the Java SIG and create a new Java SIG from scratch that actually cares about packaging Java properly in and for (non-modular) Fedora. The current modules are missing a lot of Java software that users care about (e.g. NetBeans, etc. – some, such as NetBeans, had already been retired before Modularity became a thing, because the Java SIG had already been disintegrating back then, some was lost in the move to modules), have put Eclipse into a broken state, have simply replaced the adapted JPackage version of Maven (with RPM integration) with a vanilla upstream Maven that does not have this feature (I cannot see what advantage that change brings), etc. And I do not see at all what advantage end users would get from those packages being in modules. Both Maven and Ant are tools where you normally always want the latest version, there is not much value in being able to pick a specific version stream. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
