On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 12:08, Peter Boy <p...@uni-bremen.de> wrote: > > > > Am 04.10.2021 um 15:07 schrieb Mat Booth <fed...@matbooth.co.uk>: > > Like many Open Source projects, Fedora is a "do-ocracyβ β β¦. > > A nice phrase with a decent connotation. And itβs 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-ocracyβ, 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 :-) > > β¦ 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 listβ > 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@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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
