On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:48 PM Alexander Scheel <asch...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Christopher" <ctubb...@fedoraproject.org> > > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > > Cc: "Fabio Valentini" <decatho...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 6:14:57 PM > > Subject: Re: Over 500 orphaned packages seeking new maintainers > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 5:36 PM Alexander Scheel <asch...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Question (not for Fabio specifically, but for the list) modules can > have > > > > (Build)Requires on other modules > > > > right? > > > > > > Yes, if the module maintainer is willing to expose their module in the > > > BUILDROOT. That was PKI's problem: mizdebsk orphaned the ursine > packages, > > > exposed them in a module available only at runtime, and refused to open > > > it up for build-time use. He wanted us to maintain our own versions of > > > all of the packages we use that he modularized. > > > > I don't think "refused" is a fair characterization. My understanding > > of the problem is that creating a module is new (and change is hard), > > and unnecessary for most basic packages, so long as their BRs are > > available. Maintaining many of the java BRs across multiple releases > > was becoming burdensome, so mizdebsk decided to take advantage of > > modules to reduce their work load. The ideal at that point was to > > expose modules to the ursine BUILDROOT, in order for ursine packagers > > to have BRs on them without having to themselves be shipped in a > > module. Without that, lots of ursine packages were going to suffer, > > and that's what happened. Fedora is now extremely hostile to Java > > packagers, unless 1) the java packager is willing to take on dozens or > > hundreds of packages, or 2) the java packager is willing to learn how > > to do all this module stuff. > > > > I don't think it's fair to say that mizdebsk "refused" to open them up > > to build-time use... but perhaps fair to say that they refused to open > > them up to build-time use, when that didn't solve the underlying > > problem (because they would still only be available to modular > > packages, and not to ursine ones, which is what was needed). > > This actually has nothing to do with modules vs. ursine packages. mizdebsk > maintains a very small API on his modules. This limits what other modules > can do with it, including in the BUILDROOT. So when our first attempt to > save Dogtag was to modularize it (into the now-deprecated pki module), > we realized that wouldn't work *because* of that small API. It simply > didn't contain what we needed. > > We reached out to mizdebsk and his stance was that we should bundle all > our dependencies (that he modularized) into *our* module, maintaining > *separate* streams from his. This is completely unworkable at scale. He > didn't want to expand the API. We put our time elsewhere and stayed ursine. > > I think "refused" is thus a fair categorization. > And you offered him to take ownership, right? I just couldn't stand looking how the single guy keeping Java ecosystem working in Fedora for a number of years is being *blamed* for not doing exactly what others need and I haven't heard of *anyone* actually proposing to take some of his load. > > > At least, that's my understanding of the situation. > > > > FWIW, I'm probably going to orphan the last of my Java packages, too, > > because I don't have time to figure out how to create a bunch of > > modules just so I can get the BRs I need. My time would be better > > spent building ursine packages in COPR, outside of Fedora's modularity > > efforts. I've been watching keenly, to see if the situation will > > change, and Fedora will become Java-friendly again, but I don't see > > that happening, sadly. > > Right, and perhaps you'll get lucky and your modules will work because > your BRs are exposed in the API of modules. But until then, the SIG is > picking up hundreds of packages just to keep the entire ecosystem alive > and to help out those maintainers who don't have time or don't want to > modularize. > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > 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@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://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@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse Team
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
