1:51 a.m.
Hi
I orphaned josm (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/josm), the java
openstreetmap editor on request by the original maintainer. Please adopt
it. It needs to be updated regularly to follow the current openstreetmap
guidelines, currently it is outdated (also in EPEL).
Kind regards
Till
5:32 a.m.
On 2018-03-22, 06:51 GMT, Till Maas wrote:
I orphaned josm (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/josm), the
java openstreetmap editor on request by the original
maintainer. Please adopt it. It needs to be updated regularly
to follow the current openstreetmap guidelines, currently it
is outdated (also in EPEL).
My experience with JOSM is that this is probably one of the
programs which are better not to be packaged (other example: vim
plugins). Java Web Start on
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/download/josm.jnlp works just fine
and I don't see the reason why we should bother with packaging
it ourselves.
Best,
Matěj
--
https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mcepl(a)ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8
God is not worried about my financial situation.
6:55 a.m.
On 03/22/2018 11:32 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
On 2018-03-22, 06:51 GMT, Till Maas wrote:
> I orphaned josm (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/josm), the
> java openstreetmap editor on request by the original
> maintainer. Please adopt it. It needs to be updated regularly
> to follow the current openstreetmap guidelines, currently it
> is outdated (also in EPEL).
My experience with JOSM is that this is probably one of the
programs which are better not to be packaged (other example: vim
plugins). Java Web Start on
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/download/josm.jnlp works just fine
and I don't see the reason why we should bother with packaging
it ourselves.
The reasons for packaging something up as rpm is security and system
integrety/consistency, i.e. not to endanger installations from the
(windowish) mindset of "unpackaged" third party stuff.
What you say, basically means you are questioning and deny the
usefulness of packaging as a whole. The key feature which has made Linux
distros great and superior to Windows.
Ralf
10:19 a.m.
On 2018-03-22, 11:55 GMT, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
What you say, basically means you are questioning and deny the
usefulness of packaging as a whole. The key feature which has
made Linux distros great and superior to Windows.
I understand your point, but I just wonder whether there is
really sense in packaging everything under the sun with our
resources (human ones) are limited. Firefox/Thunderbird plugins,
vim/emacs ones (do you limit yourself with your $EDITOR just to
plugins provided by Fedora in RPMs?), and fast moving Java
programs with working Java Web Start, come to mind as things
which are not necessary to be packaged. A way less important
than things which have to be packaged (e.g., what is our story
of Nextcloud on EL6, which is still major server distro?).
Best,
Matěj
--
https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mcepl(a)ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8
Only two of my personalities are schizophrenic, but one of them
is paranoid and the other one is out to get him.
11:32 a.m.
Le jeudi 22 mars 2018 à 16:19 +0100, Matěj Cepl a écrit :
On 2018-03-22, 11:55 GMT, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> What you say, basically means you are questioning and deny the
> usefulness of packaging as a whole. The key feature which has
> made Linux distros great and superior to Windows.
I understand your point, but I just wonder whether there is
really sense in packaging everything under the sun with our
resources (human ones) are limited.
You have strong networks effects, the more you package, the easier it
becomes (because you get more already packaged deps, because it makes
more upstreams aware of good software engineering practices, because it
forces you to solve tooling problems instead of letting them to the next
packager, because it attracts more potential packagers, because it
creates a baseline other projects can standardise on).
On the contrary the less you package, the harder it becomes.
Baseline breadth is pretty much why the Linux desktop is so hard to
crack and why no one succeeded in creating a new successful Linux distro
not based on Debian or Fedora for the last decade.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
12:49 p.m.
New subject: josm orphaned, or why are we packaging
On 03/22/2018 07:55 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/22/2018 11:32 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> On 2018-03-22, 06:51 GMT, Till Maas wrote:
>> I orphaned josm
>>
(https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsrc.fedo...),
>> the
>> java openstreetmap editor on request by the original
>> maintainer. Please adopt it. It needs to be updated regularly
>> to follow the current openstreetmap guidelines, currently it
>> is outdated (also in EPEL).
>
> My experience with JOSM is that this is probably one of the
> programs which are better not to be packaged (other example: vim
> plugins). Java Web Start on
>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjosm.ope...
> works just fine
> and I don't see the reason why we should bother with packaging
> it ourselves.
The reasons for packaging something up as rpm is security and system
integrety/consistency, i.e. not to endanger installations from the
(windowish) mindset of "unpackaged" third party stuff.
What you say, basically means you are questioning and deny the
usefulness of packaging as a whole. The key feature which has made
Linux distros great and superior to Windows.
I fundamentally agree with Ralph, but
I also wanted to point out that
the situation is more complicated than it used to be. The executable
content is available a spectrum of ways, from most heavyweight to most
lightweight
1. ELF binaries
2. binary run-time loadable libraries
3. script files for scripting language environments (java programs
could be arguably placed here)
4. scripting language libraries
5. java applets running in the browser
6. javascript running in the browser
Clearly, we want to package 1. and 2., and we aren't going to start
packaging 6; there's a big discussion as to what's the right approach
for 3 and 4 (npm, conda, cargo, etc).
My point is that we have to decide where we put the line; what Ralph is
saying, and I agree, is we want to push it as far down as
practical---but there always be some executable content that doesn't
make sense to be packaged. We just need to decide why we're packaging
and what are the tradeoffs.
One way of looking at it is that packaging provides an assurance that
the software we're running is the software we think you're running, as
opposed to downloading random binaries and scripts from the internet
(curl | /bin/sh). In this way of thinking, software downloaded from
secure (TLS/https) connections to trusted sites could be considered as
good as packaged---we're doing it to javascript so why not java and
other things. The .jnlp file that provides JOSM is essentially an XML
file which starts the java machinery running the OSM-provided java
application--I can see how people could argue that it's no different
from maps.google.com starting a javascript mapping application in your
browser.
Another criterion could be whether the software installs itself on your
system, or is transient, putting the line pretty firmly between 4. and
5. That would push the JOSM into the packaged category. This approach
addresses the bitrot aspect---the fact that unpackaged software has a
tendency to fall behind and end up with bugs and exploits.
I think that we should reflect on such fundamental requirements because
they are relevant to how the modularity and container situation develops.
3:22 a.m.
New subject: josm orphaned, or why are we packaging
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:27PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
1. ELF binaries
2. binary run-time loadable libraries
3. script files for scripting language environments (java programs
could be arguably placed here)
4. scripting language libraries
5. java applets running in the browser
6. javascript running in the browser
Clearly, we want to package 1. and 2., and we aren't going to start
packaging 6; there's a big discussion as to what's the right approach for 3
and 4 (npm, conda, cargo, etc).
Actually 6. is also packaged for web applications that we package. Not
sure if there are still stand-alone packages for jquery but the code is
at least bundled in other packages.
One way of looking at it is that packaging provides an assurance that
the
software we're running is the software we think you're running, as opposed
to downloading random binaries and scripts from the internet (curl |
/bin/sh). In this way of thinking, software downloaded from secure
(TLS/https) connections to trusted sites could be considered as good as
packaged---we're doing it to javascript so why not java and other things.
One big difference is that Javascript is sandboxed in the browser. Also
download code just via https is not as good as it being packaged. With
packages you can also rollback to older versions or decide when to
upgrade. Also signed packages make sure that everyone gets the same
thing because there is only one signed RPM for each NVR which also
allows for QA. See for example the NPM bug:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/show-stopping-bug-appears-in-npm-node-js-pac...
Also there have been instances where upstream downloads were compromised
in the past.
The .jnlp file that provides JOSM is essentially an XML file which
starts
the java machinery running the OSM-provided java application--I can see how
people could argue that it's no different from maps.google.com starting a
javascript mapping application in your browser.
Google maps is not FLOSS and a stand-alone application has still
advantages over a web application. So using a java web start application
might be as good as using a javascript web app, but a stand-alone
application can still be better. For example, is it possible to add a
java web start application to the gnome favorites? I guess it is only
possible with manually writing a .desktop file.
Kind regards
Till
1:08 p.m.
I never packaged something for Fedora before, but can you give me a
chance to see how is the effort to maintain the package before I adopt
it?
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I orphaned josm (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/josm), the java
> openstreetmap editor on request by the original maintainer. Please adopt
> it. It needs to be updated regularly to follow the current openstreetmap
> guidelines, currently it is outdated (also in EPEL).
>
> Kind regards
> Till
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
4:21 a.m.
Dne 22.3.2018 v 19:08 Ricardo Martinelli Oliveira napsal(a):
I never packaged something for Fedora before, but can you give me a
chance to see how is the effort to maintain the package before I adopt
it?
This should be good place to start your journey:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
V.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I orphaned josm (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/josm), the java
> openstreetmap editor on request by the original maintainer. Please adopt
> it. It needs to be updated regularly to follow the current openstreetmap
> guidelines, currently it is outdated (also in EPEL).
>
> Kind regards
> Till
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
3:46 p.m.
Hello,
I would like take the package, but other co-maintainers are always welcomed. I filled the
following rel-eng ticket:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7409
Regards,
Jakub
5:39 p.m.
Jakub,
Can we discuss tomorrow about the package? I'd love to be
co-maintainer since I use josm frequently.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Jakub Jelen <jjelen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like take the package, but other co-maintainers are always welcomed. I filled
the following rel-eng ticket:
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7409
>
> Regards,
> Jakub
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
6:32 a.m.
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 19:39 -0300, Ricardo Martinelli Oliveira wrote:
Jakub,
Can we discuss tomorrow about the package? I'd love to be
co-maintainer since I use josm frequently.
Hello,
thank you for the interest. I already put together a PR which makes it
building and working for me with latest stable release:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/josm/pull-request/1
I could use a review of the changes, if they make sense for you or
there are things to improve/change/do other way. This is my first java
package. Feel free to use the Pull request comments to keep it of this
(already flooded list).
Thanks,
Jakub
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Jakub Jelen
<jjelen(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like take the package, but other co-maintainers are always
> welcomed. I filled the following rel-eng ticket:
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7409
>
> Regards,
> Jakub
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Jakub Jelen
Software Engineer
Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.
2237
days inactive
2241
days old
11 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Jakub Jelen -
Matěj Cepl -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Przemek Klosowski -
Ralf Corsepius -
Ricardo Martinelli Oliveira -
Till Maas -
Vít Ondruch