On 6/9/20 5:07 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:52 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:05 PM Jiri Vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Please see >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11#common_issues_packagers_can_face_and_gathered_solutions >>> Please fix your packages according to >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11#copr_preliminary_rebuild >>> Inidivdual packagers are being emailed with details >> >> I've asked mizdebsk whether he thinks we can switch to using >> xmvn-javadoc, which solves the majority of those build failures (over >> half, by my count). >> I also sent this proposal to the devel and java-devel mailing lists, >> and there was no opposition to the change. >> >> For other failures, I've begun to track "EasyFix" solutions (mostly, >> overriding -source 1.8 and -target 1.8, as suggested in the Change >> proposal), and I've started to either push this change directly (for >> packages I am associated with), or filing Pull Requests for them: >> https://pagure.io/java-maint-sig/issue/1 >> >> However, I am only one man, with only so much time, so without help, >> this "applying EasyFixes" will still take a while. >> >> With both changes (switching from maven-javadoc-plugin to >> xmvn-javadoc, and applying the -source / -target 1.8 EasyFixes), the >> number of build failures should be lower than 100, not over 500. >> That's still a big number of broken packages, but it's *much* more manageable. I had missed any coordinated effort to mass fix to the packages via -source / -target 1.8 and --xmvn-javadoc. If this is happening, I will happily stop spamming, and will try to keep myself in loop. > > Can you also please stop pushing changes to packages without > coordinating with either the Java SIG or the Stewardship SIG (in one > case, even by abusing provenpackager rights to push directly to a > PR-only package)? I should be pushing only where I'm co/maintainer. > > Both beust-jcommander (*with tests*) and google-gson build fine with > xmvn-javadoc, yes, but both your commits wouldn't be necessary if > we're going ahead with switching to xmvn-javadoc by default, as I > suggested *2 weeks ago*: I know. And I'm using --xmvn-javadoc where possble now. And had listedit also on the know fixes page. > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/javapackages-tools/pull-request/3#comment-44930 > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/UD7Q5DYAWI7YO4VW7UZPDWR644V7S462/ > > Fabio > -- Jiri Vanek Senior QE engineer, OpenJDK QE lead, Mgr. Red Hat Czech jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx M: +420775390109 _______________________________________________ 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
