Re: [fedora-java] Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG thread

2020-05-19 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:19 AM Ankur Sinha wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 10:44:05 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > > > Good Morning! > > > > We were planning to discuss this from the Stewardship SIG point of > > view during today's meeting, and I didn't want to announce any plans > >

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG thread

2020-05-19 Thread Ankur Sinha
On Tue, May 19, 2020 10:44:05 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > Good Morning! > > We were planning to discuss this from the Stewardship SIG point of > view during today's meeting, and I didn't want to announce any plans > before that. > > However, my suggestion would be to do the following

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG thread

2020-05-19 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM Ankur Sinha wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 18:45:12 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 6:17 PM Igor Raits > > wrote: > > > Count me in! I don't think I can help much, but at least can give some > > > suggestions. > > > > > > > Let's make

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG thread

2020-05-19 Thread Ankur Sinha
On Tue, May 12, 2020 18:45:12 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 6:17 PM Igor Raits > wrote: > > Count me in! I don't think I can help much, but at least can give some > > suggestions. > > > > > Let's make this happen. > > > > Good luck, Fabio! > > Thanks! Every bit of help

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Samuel Sieb
On 5/18/20 5:54 PM, Ty Young wrote: I'm not advocating for in-kernel drivers. AMD with their drivers has proven proven what a bad idea that is. I, for the most part, like where I'm at and the way Nvidia does things. If I'm against it, I don't see why I would be the one to do it. This comment

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:54:42PM -0500, Ty Young wrote: > Surely it is the responsibility of those who want such a change to > make sure that everything that existed before can continue to exist? I > realize this requires that such arguments are being made in good faith > and consider the

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Neal Gompa
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:18 PM Ty Young wrote: > > > On 5/18/20 8:24 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > > Dude, chill out. We're not going to go back to running X as root. The > > Nvidia overclocking tool is just not important at all (seriously, who > > cares?). If you're upset their

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Ty Young
On 5/18/20 8:24 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Dude, chill out. We're not going to go back to running X as root. The Nvidia overclocking tool is just not important at all (seriously, who cares?). If you're upset their proprietary software doesn't work anymore, you can ask them nicely to fix

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread John M. Harris Jr
On Monday, May 18, 2020 4:03:16 PM MST Ty Young wrote: > On 5/18/20 2:51 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > > On 5/18/20 7:27 AM, Ty Young wrote: > > > >> The application was an Nvidia GPU overclocking utility written in > >> Java. When Fedora decided to disable running X. Org as root, it > >>

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 8:24 pm, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Dude, chill out. We're not going to go back to running X as root. Ugh, I just noticed the subject of this thread is Java SIG. Amazing how thoroughly this conversation has been derailed

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Michael Catanzaro
Dude, chill out. We're not going to go back to running X as root. The Nvidia overclocking tool is just not important at all (seriously, who cares?). If you're upset their proprietary software doesn't work anymore, you can ask them nicely to fix it please... or ask for the source code, and

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Ty Young
On 5/18/20 7:08 PM, Solomon Peachy wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 06:03:16PM -0500, Ty Young wrote: Willing to bet you or anyone else here won't. FYI, this applies to you as well. You just proved my point: >If it was Open Source and we were having this discussion, people like yourself

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Gerald Henriksen
On Mon, 18 May 2020 18:03:16 -0500, you wrote: >X. Org as root is **STILL** the standard and Fedora broke it. This is >why no one wants to support Linux: you constantly break your own >platform and then cry wolf when people who don't care about your >ideological nonsense refuse to fix their

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 06:03:16PM -0500, Ty Young wrote: > Willing to bet you or anyone else here won't. FYI, this applies to you as well. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachypizza at shaftnet dot org (email) @pizza:shaftnet dot org

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Nico Kadel-Garcia
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 9:34 AM Ty Young wrote: > The "toolchain" isn't broken, other than Gradle developers not caring > about backwards compatibility but... It works for them, just as A toolchain with broken links scattered through it is not toolchain. Building up the .jar files as a

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Ty Young
On 5/18/20 2:51 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 5/18/20 7:27 AM, Ty Young wrote: The application was an Nvidia GPU overclocking utility written in Java. When Fedora decided to disable running X. Org as root, it resulted in the application no longer being able to adjust GPU/Memory clocks, among

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Samuel Sieb
On 5/18/20 7:27 AM, Ty Young wrote: The application was an Nvidia GPU overclocking utility written in Java. When Fedora decided to disable running X. Org as root, it resulted in the application no longer being able to adjust GPU/Memory clocks, among possible other things. The software worked

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Ty Young
On 5/18/20 9:14 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:34 PM Ty Young wrote: On 5/18/20 7:35 AM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: My software didn't magically break just for Fedora because of some bug in my software. It broke because Fedora decided they wanted to do something

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:34 PM Ty Young wrote: > On 5/18/20 7:35 AM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > My software didn't magically break just for Fedora because of some bug > in my software. It broke because Fedora decided they wanted to do > something nearly no Linux distro does... something

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Nicolas Mailhot via devel
Le lundi 18 mai 2020 à 08:34 -0500, Ty Young a écrit : > > The "toolchain" isn't broken, other than Gradle developers not > caring about backwards compatibility but... It works for them, just > as constantly breaking internal kernel APIs works for the Linux > kernel The difference, is that you

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Ty Young
On 5/18/20 8:34 AM, Ty Young wrote: ...and there are plenty of Open Source projects that don't have packages yet people contribute to them. This isn't the early 2000 when barely anyone has internet and sites like Github didn't exist. Sure, a distro package increases visibility still, but

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Ty Young
On 5/18/20 7:35 AM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: Le lundi 18 mai 2020 à 14:12 +0200, Michal Srb a écrit : Hello, On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:24 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: Le vendredi 15 mai 2020 à 08:30 -0700, stan via devel a écrit : On Fri, 15

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Nicolas Mailhot via devel
Le lundi 18 mai 2020 à 14:12 +0200, Michal Srb a écrit : > Hello, > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:24 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > Le vendredi 15 mai 2020 à 08:30 -0700, stan via devel a écrit : > > > On Fri, 15 May 2020 08:02:34 +0200 > > > Michal Srb

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-18 Thread Michal Srb
Hello, On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:24 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Le vendredi 15 mai 2020 à 08:30 -0700, stan via devel a écrit : > > On Fri, 15 May 2020 08:02:34 +0200 > > Michal Srb wrote: > > > > An aside, just to clarify for myself. That means that

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-16 Thread stan via devel
On Sat, 16 May 2020 11:23:03 +0200 Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le vendredi 15 mai 2020 à 08:30 -0700, stan via devel a écrit : > > On Fri, 15 May 2020 08:02:34 +0200 > > Michal Srb wrote: > > > > An aside, just to clarify for myself. That means that all Java apps > > are > > the equivalent of

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-16 Thread Nicolas Mailhot via devel
Le vendredi 15 mai 2020 à 08:30 -0700, stan via devel a écrit : > On Fri, 15 May 2020 08:02:34 +0200 > Michal Srb wrote: > > An aside, just to clarify for myself. That means that all Java apps > are > the equivalent of statically linked, right? And are related to > things > like flatpaks and

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-15 Thread Gerald Henriksen
On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:33:47 -0500, you wrote: >* Game developers largely refuse to support Linux, and the some of the >few that have have or are currently pulling support citing >fragmentation(support) issues. Game developers refuse to support Linux because there is no userbase - even Steam,

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-15 Thread Gerald Henriksen
On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:59:47 -0500, you wrote: >What i'm saying is: Distros like Fedora actively hurt the very people >who are directly or indirectly helping them. There are single-person run >projects, like mine, out there that can't possibly do all the work >needed to have a dozen packages

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-15 Thread stan via devel
On Fri, 15 May 2020 08:02:34 +0200 Michal Srb wrote: > > I realize that this is technically possible to achieve, but that is > > not how people use it. If you want to distribute your Java app, you > > just bundle it with all its dependencies into a beefy tarball and > > ship it. And if Java apps

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-15 Thread Michal Srb
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 2:42 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 14. 05. 20 v 11:53 Michal Srb napsal(a): > > Hello, > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:57 PM Felix Schwarz > wrote: > >> >> Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: >> > Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose

Re: Why distributions package software (was: Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG)

2020-05-14 Thread Jerry James
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:38 AM Igor Raits wrote: > On Thu, 2020-05-14 at 06:33 -0500, Ty Young wrote: > > Nonsense spewing with no proof. > > Well, you have started this. Can you provide some statistics how many > bugs were introduced by distributions versus upstream bugs. My experience has

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Mamoru TASAKA
Well, as just I saw "xscreensaver" word here: Ty Young wrote on 2020/05/14 20:33: On 5/13/20 4:58 PM, Solomon Peachy wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 04:04:50PM -0500, Ty Young wrote: Anyway, I'm just asking that Fedora not repeat what Debian did. While I find it to be a bit paranoid, I

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 14. 05. 20 v 11:53 Michal Srb napsal(a): > Hello, > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:57 PM Felix Schwarz > mailto:fschw...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: > > > Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: > > Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I > suppose I > >

Why distributions package software (was: Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG)

2020-05-14 Thread Igor Raits
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, I wanted to avoid replying to this thread, but this message forced me to do so since it is spreading misinformation. On Thu, 2020-05-14 at 06:33 -0500, Ty Young wrote: > On 5/13/20 4:58 PM, Solomon Peachy wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Ty Young
On 5/14/20 6:42 AM, Solomon Peachy wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 06:33:47AM -0500, Ty Young wrote: Whichever you choose. Large projects like Gnome and Fedora refer to themselves as one large organization one minute and then as individuals the next. It reminds me of how everyone says "Linux"

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Nicolas Mailhot via devel
Le jeudi 14 mai 2020 à 06:33 -0500, Ty Young a écrit : > > I could literally go on and on. The "my-shit-don't-stink" attitude is > so terrible it's borderline sad. And years of terminally broken build practices Java-side have finally resulted in complete capture of all the Java big data code the

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 06:33:47AM -0500, Ty Young wrote: > Whichever you choose. Large projects like Gnome and Fedora refer to > themselves as one large organization one minute and then as individuals the > next. It reminds me of how everyone says "Linux" is less resource hungry > then Windows

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Ty Young
On 5/13/20 4:58 PM, Solomon Peachy wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 04:04:50PM -0500, Ty Young wrote: Anyway, I'm just asking that Fedora not repeat what Debian did. While I find it to be a bit paranoid, I understand the concerns regarding someone sneaking in malware into pre-build binaries. I'm

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Nicolas Mailhot via devel
Le jeudi 14 mai 2020 à 11:53 +0200, Michal Srb a écrit : > > Since there is no standard place for shared Java libraries on your > laptop, Of course there is one /usr/share/java, which has been defined and used by Linux distributions since jpackage times (circa ~2000). Java is not special from a

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Ty Young
On 5/14/20 4:53 AM, Michal Srb wrote: Hello, On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:57 PM Felix Schwarz mailto:fschw...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: > Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose I > should have been more

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:55 PM Michal Srb wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:57 PM Felix Schwarz > wrote: > >> >> Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: >> > Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose >> I >> > should have been more clear there. Sorry

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-14 Thread Michal Srb
Hello, On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:57 PM Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: > > Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose I > > should have been more clear there. Sorry for any confusion, it was aimed > at > > the Fedora project as a

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:59 PM Ty Young wrote: > As someone who has been burned due to Fedora's goody little two shoes > policies, I'd kindly ask that Fedora take a hike and not package the > software at all. I find it kind of ironic that this is exactly what happened, but you seem not to be

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:38 PM Jerry James wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:46 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > So, if you're interested, please consider joining this group effort. > > I'll get new members set up with the FAS group / pagure project / mailing > > list. > > Like some others

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Ty Young
On 5/13/20 4:16 PM, James Cassell wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020, at 5:04 PM, Ty Young wrote: On 5/13/20 12:04 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: Ty Young writes: On 5/12/20 5:55 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 04:04:50PM -0500, Ty Young wrote: > Anyway, I'm just asking that Fedora not repeat what Debian did. While > I find it to be a bit paranoid, I understand the concerns regarding > someone sneaking in malware into pre-build binaries. I'm just asking > Fedora not package the

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread James Cassell
On Wed, May 13, 2020, at 5:04 PM, Ty Young wrote: > > On 5/13/20 12:04 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Ty Young writes: > > > >> On 5/12/20 5:55 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > >>> Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: > >>> > Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I >

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Ty Young
On 5/13/20 12:04 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: Ty Young writes: On 5/12/20 5:55 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose I should have been more clear there. Sorry for any confusion, it was aimed at

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Jerry James
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:46 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > So, if you're interested, please consider joining this group effort. > I'll get new members set up with the FAS group / pagure project / mailing > list. Like some others who have responded, I probably won't be much help due to lack of

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Robbie Harwood
Ty Young writes: > On 5/12/20 5:55 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: >> Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: >> >>> Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I >>> suppose I should have been more clear there. Sorry for any >>> confusion, it was aimed at the Fedora project as a whole

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Christopher Engelhard
On 13.05.20 14:55, Solomon Peachy wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:57:43PM -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote: >> The only way to make sure that the stuff included with Fedora is open >> source is to build it from source - simply grabbing a binary provided >> by an upstream means upstream could slip

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:57:43PM -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > The only way to make sure that the stuff included with Fedora is open > source is to build it from source - simply grabbing a binary provided > by an upstream means upstream could slip in some closed source > portions or have such

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-13 Thread Kevin Kofler
Gerald Henriksen wrote: > The only way to make sure that the stuff included with Fedora is open > source is to build it from source - simply grabbing a binary provided > by an upstream means upstream could slip in some closed source > portions or have such a complex and undocumented build system

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Gerald Henriksen
On Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:39 -0500, you wrote: >As someone who has been burned due to Fedora's goody little two shoes >policies, I'd kindly ask that Fedora take a hike and not package the >software at all. The only way to make sure that the stuff included with Fedora is open source is to build

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Philip Rhoades
Ty, On 2020-05-13 06:58, Ty Young wrote: On 5/12/20 5:55 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose I should have been more clear there. Sorry for any confusion, it was aimed at the Fedora project

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Ty Young
On 5/12/20 5:55 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose I should have been more clear there. Sorry for any confusion, it was aimed at the Fedora project as a whole as this is a Fedora issue. This

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread John W. Himpel
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:45 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > This past weekend I finally decided to jump off the cliff and attempt > to re-launch the Java SIG. It seems there's some interest in keeping > the Java stack maintained, it's just not focused or organized right > now. > > What we did

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 6:17 PM Igor Raits wrote: > Count me in! I don't think I can help much, but at least can give some > suggestions. > > > Let's make this happen. > > Good luck, Fabio! Thanks! Every bit of help counts. You should now be all set with FAS group / pagure project / mailing list

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:43 PM Markku Korkeala wrote: > Great, really appreciate your work. Thank you! > Count me in! I'm relatively new to fedora and rpm packaging, but got ~20 > years of working with Java and my packages depends on the Java > ecosystem. FAS account: korkeala. > > Markku.

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Andrew Haley
On 5/12/20 11:55 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: >> Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose I >> should have been more clear there. Sorry for any confusion, it was aimed at >> the Fedora project as a whole as this is a Fedora

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Igor Raits
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:45 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > This past weekend I finally decided to jump off the cliff and attempt > to re-launch the Java SIG. It seems there's some interest in keeping > the Java stack maintained, it's just not

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Markku Korkeala
On 5/11/20 10:45 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > This past weekend I finally decided to jump off the cliff and attempt > to re-launch the Java SIG. It seems there's some interest in keeping > the Java stack maintained, it's just not focused or organized right > now Great, really appreciate your work.

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:53:32AM -0400, Omair Majid wrote: > Hi, > > A bit of a tangential question: > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes: > > > So maybe just nuke the outdated parts (member lists, "state of affairs" > > content), and keep the rest? > > My wiki-foo sucks. Is there some

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Omair Majid
Hi, A bit of a tangential question: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes: > So maybe just nuke the outdated parts (member lists, "state of affairs" > content), and keep the rest? My wiki-foo sucks. Is there some way to automatically generate a list of members on the wiki from a FAS group?

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Alex Scheel
- Original Message - > From: "Fabio Valentini" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 9:44:33 AM > Subject: Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:34 PM Alex Scheel wrote: > >

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:34 PM Alex Scheel wrote: > > Obviously count us in, Fabio :-) *Us* means the three guys from the Dogtag PKI team? :) > Do we need a two-step bootstrap process? A first (offline) step where we run > gradle-wrapper and fetch all the resources, put all online dependencies

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Alex Scheel
Obviously count us in, Fabio :-) - Original Message - > From: "Fabio Valentini" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 6:39:04 AM > Subject: Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG > > On Tue, May 12, 2020

Re: [fedora-java] Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:02 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > Good luck with that! As someone that has been part of the Java SIG since day > 0 I wish you make Fedora even better workstation for Java developer than we > ever managed. Thank you! You're welcome to (re-)join the effort, we'd be

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:45 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > This past weekend I finally decided to jump off the cliff and attempt > to re-launch the Java SIG. It seems there's some interest in keeping > the Java stack maintained, it's just not focused or organized right > now. > > What we did

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Ty Young
On 5/12/20 5:39 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:34 PM Ty Young wrote: Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose I should have been more clear there. Sorry for any confusion, it was aimed at the Fedora project as a whole as this is a Fedora

Re: [fedora-java] Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:46 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > This past weekend I finally decided to jump off the cliff and attempt > to re-launch the Java SIG. It seems there's some interest in keeping > the Java stack maintained, it's just not focused or organized right > now. > > What we did when

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Felix Schwarz
Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: > Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose I > should have been more clear there. Sorry for any confusion, it was aimed at > the Fedora project as a whole as this is a Fedora issue. This is not a Fedora issue but a consequence

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 12.05.2020 10:35, Ty Young wrote: > JUST PACKAGE THE PRE-COMPILED BUILDS!!! No. Please read Fedora packaging guidelines. All packages **must** be built from sources. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:34 PM Ty Young wrote: > Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I suppose > I should have been more clear there. Sorry for any confusion, it was > aimed at the Fedora project as a whole as this is a Fedora issue. I am aware that Arch is just

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Ty Young
On 5/12/20 3:48 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 12.05.20 um 10:35 schrieb Ty Young: JUST PACKAGE THE PRE-COMPILED BUILDS!!! Don't take me as rude but this is not possible. This is documented in Fedora's packaging policies:

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Ankur Sinha
t just won't work, like, ever again. I > > wrote a longer response here: > > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/re-launching-the-java-sig/19688/3 > > So, you are welcome to try, but I bet you'll end up in the long line > > of packagers who failed to make it work. > >

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Felix Schwarz
Hey Fabio, thank you very much for your work. I can't take on more Fedora work but still wanted to express my gratitude :-) Felix ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Felix Schwarz
Am 12.05.20 um 10:35 schrieb Ty Young: > JUST PACKAGE THE PRE-COMPILED BUILDS!!! Don't take me as rude but this is not possible. This is documented in Fedora's packaging policies: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-libraries

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Ty Young
to support gradle, even in some partial form, than to rewrite build systems of hundreds of packages...). Uh. We tried. Multiple times. It just won't work, like, ever again. I wrote a longer response here: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/re-launching-the-java-sig/19688/3 So, you are welcome

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:15 AM Ankur Sinha wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 09:50:30 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > > > Yep, count me in. > > > > Thanks. I'll get your memberships set up. :) > > Thank you for starting this off, and thank you for taking care of the > Java packages in the

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Ankur Sinha
On Tue, May 12, 2020 09:50:30 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > Yep, count me in. > > Thanks. I'll get your memberships set up. :) Thank you for starting this off, and thank you for taking care of the Java packages in the meantime too. We really appreciate it. Please count me in also. :)

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Fabio Valentini
, in the long term it seems better to support gradle, even > in some partial form, than to rewrite build systems of hundreds of > packages...). Uh. We tried. Multiple times. It just won't work, like, ever again. I wrote a longer response here: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/re-launch

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-12 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:45:15PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > This past weekend I finally decided to jump off the cliff and attempt > to re-launch the Java SIG. It seems there's some interest in keeping > the Java stack maintained, it's just not focused or organized right > now. > > What we

Re-Launching the Java SIG

2020-05-11 Thread Fabio Valentini
This past weekend I finally decided to jump off the cliff and attempt to re-launch the Java SIG. It seems there's some interest in keeping the Java stack maintained, it's just not focused or organized right now. What we did when starting the Stewardship SIG seems to have worked out pretty well,