Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]
On 03/24/2014 12:48 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 03/22/2014 07:51 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 03/19/2014 10:59 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim to be anything more than that, so I don't see the harm in leaving it there. Speaking as the upstream maintainer, I do. Hi Andrew, can you be a little more specific about the potential harm you see with keeping GCJ in Fedora? I think Rahul already answered this. Do you expect me to say something different from him? Well, speaking of harm, yes, I do. Don't take me wrong. I just want to know if there is any reason beyond maintainer unwillingness/ lack of time. No, I don't think there is, beyond the usual objections to leaving packages to rot. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]
On 03/22/2014 07:51 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 03/19/2014 10:59 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim to be anything more than that, so I don't see the harm in leaving it there. Speaking as the upstream maintainer, I do. Hi Andrew, can you be a little more specific about the potential harm you see with keeping GCJ in Fedora? I think Rahul already answered this. Do you expect me to say something different from him? Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 03/22/2014 07:51 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 03/19/2014 10:59 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim to be anything more than that, so I don't see the harm in leaving it there. Speaking as the upstream maintainer, I do. Hi Andrew, can you be a little more specific about the potential harm you see with keeping GCJ in Fedora? I think Rahul already answered this. Do you expect me to say something different from him? Well, speaking of harm, yes, I do. Don't take me wrong. I just want to know if there is any reason beyond maintainer unwillingness/ lack of time. Thanks, Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 03/19/2014 10:59 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim to be anything more than that, so I don't see the harm in leaving it there. Speaking as the upstream maintainer, I do. Hi Andrew, can you be a little more specific about the potential harm you see with keeping GCJ in Fedora? Thanks, Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]
On 03/19/2014 10:59 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote: - Original Message - On 03/08/2014 03:37 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: Sorry I am missing something. Why can't we keep the old pdftk that works with itext2? Check the whole thread - because of GCJ dependency. iText is second issue. The first could be fixed by rewrite of offending part of code to Java but someone would have to do it first. That's how I understand this situation. The only things I read in the thread are GCJ is abandoned and we really want to get rid of GCJ. Am I supposed to come to the conclusion that the GCJ package is dropped from Fedora? If so, where is this decision made? Why was it made without consulting GCJ users? The problem is more to do with upstream maintainership. If GCJ is to be used in the future it needs to be updated to a current version of the Java class library, but that's a lot of work. GCJ is still a pretty good compiler for the Java language, but it's stuck at JDK5 (ish). And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim to be anything more than that, so I don't see the harm in leaving it there. Speaking as the upstream maintainer, I do. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]
- Original Message - On 03/08/2014 03:37 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: Sorry I am missing something. Why can't we keep the old pdftk that works with itext2? Check the whole thread - because of GCJ dependency. iText is second issue. The first could be fixed by rewrite of offending part of code to Java but someone would have to do it first. That's how I understand this situation. The only things I read in the thread are GCJ is abandoned and we really want to get rid of GCJ. Am I supposed to come to the conclusion that the GCJ package is dropped from Fedora? If so, where is this decision made? Why was it made without consulting GCJ users? The problem is more to do with upstream maintainership. If GCJ is to be used in the future it needs to be updated to a current version of the Java class library, but that's a lot of work. GCJ is still a pretty good compiler for the Java language, but it's stuck at JDK5 (ish). Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim to be anything more than that, so I don't see the harm in leaving it there. -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]
Hi And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim to be anything more than that, so I don't see the harm in leaving it there. We don't orphan or retire packages based on harm. We do it when there is noone volunteering to maintain it. If you care about GCJ, step up Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]
On 03/08/2014 03:37 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: Sorry I am missing something. Why can't we keep the old pdftk that works with itext2? Check the whole thread - because of GCJ dependency. iText is second issue. The first could be fixed by rewrite of offending part of code to Java but someone would have to do it first. That's how I understand this situation. The only things I read in the thread are GCJ is abandoned and we really want to get rid of GCJ. Am I supposed to come to the conclusion that the GCJ package is dropped from Fedora? If so, where is this decision made? Why was it made without consulting GCJ users? The problem is more to do with upstream maintainership. If GCJ is to be used in the future it needs to be updated to a current version of the Java class library, but that's a lot of work. GCJ is still a pretty good compiler for the Java language, but it's stuck at JDK5 (ish). Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
