On Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 07:42 Alexander Bokovoy <aboko...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On ke, 13 maalis 2019, Fabio Valentini wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 22:37 Mikolaj Izdebski <mizde...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:17 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > >> <domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tuesday, 12 March 2019 at 12:02, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > >> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:49 AM Jakub Jelen <jje...@redhat.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > Is there already a way to package the java application as a > module or > >> > > > we will really remove all these package from Fedora? > >> > > > >> > > Most of Java packages listed in this thread are already packaged as > >> > > modules. Their retirement in rawhide won't directly cause their > >> > > removal from distribution. > >> > > >> > Maybe, but it will cause the removal of other packages that depend on > >> > their regular (non-modular) builds. You are forcing the hands of their > >> > maintainers before the infrastructure to make modular packages > available > >> > as build dependencies to regular packages is in place to remake their > >> > packages into modules, let them be retired or pick up your orphans. If > >> > it were ready, your moving these packages to modules would be a > >> > non-event for everyone concerned except you. Instead of helping with > >> > that (or just waiting), you are about to cause the retirement of > quite a > >> > few packages whose maintainers want nothing to do with Modularity. > >> > That's not excellent. > >> > >> I am not forcing anyone to do anything. If I followed your thinking > >> then I colud say that by not adopting orphaned packages you are > >> forcing others to do the same things you accuse me of forcing people > >> to. > >> > > > >Still, by making your life a bit easier (by dropping "normal" packages and > >moving everything to modules), you make the life of every packager that > >depends on those packages harder. > > > >Can you give us a minimal set of packages that is required to make sure > >libreoffice etc. aren't caught up in the mass retirement? > > > >I could try to figure that out from the contents of the linked dependency > >graph, but you probably already have that information somewhere. > > > >We might want to look for maintainers for that minimal set, at least. (I > >think my Package Stewardship SIG idea is showing its merits here ...) > Another, pragmatic, approach would be to actually postpone or revert > orphaning process for all those packages now that there is understanding > that FESCO is not opposed and is merely looking for a satisfying > technical solution. I've been told by contyk and others that it is > closer to reality now. > This might come across as cynical, but a "solution" has been "just around the corner" for months / years, but these they have so far all been scrapped again. Fabio > -- > / Alexander Bokovoy > Sr. Principal Software Engineer > Security / Identity Management Engineering > Red Hat Limited, Finland > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
