> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:33 AM Stephen Smoogen <ssmoogen(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > My expectation is based on how both Python and .NET have done this: > > The Python team made "Fedora Loves Python": https://fedoralovespython.org/ > The .NET team maintains the Developer page for .NET and has a domain > redirect to it: https://fedoraloves.net/ > > These groups also do advocacy for Fedora in their upstreams and the > broader communities. I don't know why you or anyone else wouldn't > expect the packagers of OpenJDK to do advocacy for Fedora to the > OpenJDK project and the broader Java community? Maybe they wouldn't be > alone, but if they're not part of it, then the efforts fail. > This is nice example. And I agree that we shoudl do it. Issue is to findthe time. This proposal will help OpenJDK people to find a time. Second may be that ant, maven and jigsaw still have issues wit proper integration to help both distribution and outside ecosystem. Pythond defintely did better job. As for .NET - you can not compare. The pure fact that you can dnf install it says nothing about what lies beneath and how to properly toolchain it or package applications for it. I had seenboth .NET packagin internals, and tried to pack and .NET application and it was terrible. But yes, presentation is good. > > It is technically possible for OpenJDK to be built the way this Change > proposes. It would require two extra packaging changes: > > 1. A "noautobuild" file needs to be added to opt out of mass builds and such > 2. The DistTag would need to be dropped (no "%{?dist}" in Release) While it will be build in the scope of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic then no, it will remain %{?dist} based. If whole https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsToBecomePortableJDKs happens, then yes, the portbale base wil be ?dist-less, but the integration wrapper will remain ?dist-full > > After that, OpenJDK would follow the same mechanism the EFI stuff > does, where we go to "single build, multiple tags". Koji by default shmi is probably best example you can provide. And our reason is quite same - we have to certificate bianry. Fact that the owners of certificationallows us to do it on our own just simplify it, but do nto lower burden. > automatically inherits builds from the previous tag, so when new tags > are made, the latest build in the previous tag is picked up > automatically. As long as updates for OpenJDK are built against a > particular tag, then the only thing left to do would be to tag in > manually to newer Fedora release candidate tags so Bodhi can pick it > up. Most of the workflow kinks should have been worked out with shim > years ago. > > However, doing this has some terrible consequences: You cannot > participate in mass builds. You cannot benefit from newer libraries. > You will not benefit from system improvements. Finally, you are > effectively isolated from the distribution. I'm aware, and as stated many times, we are not happy from it. But we can not find better way. > > But what this Change discussion tells me is that there's something > seriously wrong with the Java TCK. I want to know if any discussion > upstream has been had about streamlining the TCK to make it easier in > the first place. Hundreds:( No reasonable resoult ever come out. _______________________________________________ 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
