On 11/18/19 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:34 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
