On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 12:08, Peter Boy <pboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Am 04.10.2021 um 15:07 schrieb Mat Booth <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Like many Open Source projects, Fedora is a "do-ocracy“ — …. > > A nice phrase with a decent connotation. And it’s true without doubt. > > And at the same time it is also true, Fedora as many other Open Source projects is as well about coordination and successful cooperation and communication. And when Debian distribution got into rough waters decades ago it was not because of a lack of packaging and "do-ocracy“, but of a lack of coordination and cooperation - just as an example. Same is true for various Fedora sub-projects. > > And by the way > > As I said before there's always a lot of discussion from people who, > in the end, never get involved. ... > > > your implicit advice for me to just take action instead of arguing is nice and welcome. However, I have been doing this for quite some time, e.g. by igniting development of a systematic and supported installation of Wildfly - albeit mainly as part of my commitment to Fedora Server WG. Not via packaging - that was found to be practically unfeasible here - but by alternative means. I invite you to support the effort with your knowledge and experience, e.g. to find the optimal way to install the upstream binary (simply in /opt or is there a better way of integration into Fedora Java runtime system, e.g. similar to Tomcat split up to the different FSH subdirectories, or something else). > Thanks for the invite, but I've never used Wildfly and have no interest in contributing to Wildfly. > The development of alternatives to rpm packaging was also one of the suggestions that came up in this thread. > Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I used my knowledge and experience to develop the flatpak distribution of Eclipse IDE as an alternative to RPMs. Then we orphaned the RPMs in favour using Eclipse as a flatpak application from Flathub. No-one stepped up to continue maintenance of the RPM version so it went away. This is the proper lifecycle of a RPM package; I won't be made to feel bad about that :-) > > … do-ocracy in action! Picking a goal you care about and setting about > achieving it doesn't require a SIG, it requires you to "do." > > So, do you have any specific, concrete goal you want to achieve? If > the removal of a Java package has affected you directly or a Java > application you care about is in danger of being removed that would be > a excellent place to start. > > > Most of this thread was not about package x.y.z but about broader issues, such as outdated/misleading documentation and information, disruptive and untrustworthy development histories (failing one of the core values of Java), need for alternatives to the current packaging process (e.g. "curated list“ as mentioned in a previous post), etc. All this has an impact on the Fedora Java eco system. Unfortunately, an answer to those issues cannot get worked out as a one-man show, I guess. > > > What else really interests me: The "java-maint-sig" will be removed soon. Then you are really completely content with the Fedora Java world? No change? No preferrable improvement anywhere? > > Yes I'm content because I have everything I need: a well maintained JDK and well maintained maven. I get my IDE from Flathub and my libraries from Maven Central. I'm a programmer so my use-cases are very basic. _______________________________________________ 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
