On ke, 13 maalis 2019, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 22:37 Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:17 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
<dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 12 March 2019 at 12:02, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:49 AM Jakub Jelen <jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there already a way to package the java application as a module or
> > > we will really remove all these package from Fedora?
> >
> > Most of Java packages listed in this thread are already packaged as
> > modules. Their retirement in rawhide won't directly cause their
> > removal from distribution.
>
> Maybe, but it will cause the removal of other packages that depend on
> their regular (non-modular) builds. You are forcing the hands of their
> maintainers before the infrastructure to make modular packages available
> as build dependencies to regular packages is in place to remake their
> packages into modules, let them be retired or pick up your orphans. If
> it were ready, your moving these packages to modules would be a
> non-event for everyone concerned except you. Instead of helping with
> that (or just waiting), you are about to cause the retirement of quite a
> few packages whose maintainers want nothing to do with Modularity.
> That's not excellent.
I am not forcing anyone to do anything. If I followed your thinking
then I colud say that by not adopting orphaned packages you are
forcing others to do the same things you accuse me of forcing people
to.
Still, by making your life a bit easier (by dropping "normal" packages and
moving everything to modules), you make the life of every packager that
depends on those packages harder.
Can you give us a minimal set of packages that is required to make sure
libreoffice etc. aren't caught up in the mass retirement?
I could try to figure that out from the contents of the linked dependency
graph, but you probably already have that information somewhere.
We might want to look for maintainers for that minimal set, at least. (I
think my Package Stewardship SIG idea is showing its merits here ...)
Another, pragmatic, approach would be to actually postpone or revert
orphaning process for all those packages now that there is understanding
that FESCO is not opposed and is merely looking for a satisfying
technical solution. I've been told by contyk and others that it is
closer to reality now.
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Security / Identity Management Engineering
Red Hat Limited, Finland
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
