On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 10:36 PM Christopher <ctubbsii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think part of the problem is that Java is too big. There are too > many libraries to fit into a single community. I think there's > probably willing volunteers to maintain some libraries and application > packages, but these are not necessarily the same people willing to do > all the work of maintaining OpenJDK packages or the whole Eclipse > stack. > > When modularity took out the whole Java stack, it did a lot of lasting > damage that is going to be hard to recover from. In order for the vast > majority of Java packagers to return, there needs to be a reliable > base. I'm thinking OpenJDK (which I think is reliably maintained right > now) and XMvn. Java packagers who might be willing to support a lot of > the rest of the libraries (guava, commons-*, etc.) need to be able to > rely on those core components being stable first. Then, when that > trust is restored, I'm sure end-user applications will trickle in. > > Right now, I'm not sure there's adequate expertise to reestablish > trust in the Java core tools for Java packagers to start coming back. Just my 0.2 euro cents here. The OpenJDK packages are well maintained, in fact, the packaging work and their updates are done by the very same team that participate to the upstream OpenJDK development. Regarding Eclipse, it's really a lot of work and I understand this, so effort moved toward a flatpack version of it. I'm not sure this saves anything, and in my experience it actually introduces some problems, but the Eclipse maintainers have a different opinion and I think we should trust their judgment. However the majority of people just usually download Eclipse (or IntelliJ for what matters) from the upstream website anyway, further suggesting that maintaining Eclipse is not really a rewarding nor useful task. For maven, I don't think anyone really relies on installed packages other than a few (mostly because of cross/transitive dependency reasons), so I'm not sure if there is any real benefit in having packagers spending resources and time to maintain packages that inevitably go out of sync. I'm not sure what's the best solution, but I guess the number one reason to have packages within the Fedora distribution is for a matter of trust, if this is the case I would argue that a curated list of maven packages served via a Fedora managed repository would be a better investment. For that to work we need a solid distribution of OpenJDK (which we have) and a solid distribution of maven (which we also have). Cheers, Mario -- Mario Torre Manager, Software Engineering, core OpenJDK Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com> 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30 9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
