On 05/21/2014 01:16 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Rati" <rrati(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako(a)redhat.com>, "Development
discussions related to Fedora"
> Cc: "Fedora Big Data SIG" <bigdata(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>,
"Fedora Java Development List"
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:06:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [fedora-java] Hadoop + log4j2 = fullstop
> So, who needed log4j2? It is massively incompatible with log4j1.2 and
> isn't a simple port job. I would argue if log4j2 was actually needed,
> it should have been introduced as a separate log4j2 package and allow
> projects to port to it as they have time/need. This update log4j to an
> incompatible version with no compat package provided at the same time is
> not the way to handle such an upgrade. Giving advanced notice that the
> world will come crumbling down and you'll have to deal with it is not
Now this it the wrong question. Questioning the right of someone doing the update and
maintaining something for others to use is unfair at least. The one that *does* decides.
Others are free to *do* themself.
I can write an essay why keeping old software around is bad and how often it hurts people
that care for the whole distro. It's pretty easy for others caring for just their own
thing to dismiss this work and any explanation would simply be not understood until they
try to look at the bigger picture. I really recommend you joining in the big effort to
keep the Java ecosystem in good shape on fedora to feel the pain and understand why so
many don't want to deal with such things.
Before you wax poetic, it's worth mentioning that log4j2 is not in any
way considered to be an appropriate successor to log4j1 in the greater
community, despite the similarity in name (which, as I understand, is
largely a political artifact rather than technical).
It could be argued that logback is closer to being a successor, but even
this project is not compatible with the original log4j API or
configuration mechanism, despite being written by the same original author.
As long as applications bundle log4j (as a backend), and as long as
shipped packages use log4j (as a frontend), the log4j1 package should
continue to be maintained and updated.
It makes the most sense to picture log4j1 and log4j2 as completely
separate and independent projects with little in common other than an
accident of naming.
P.S. 1. Just trying to get explanation for something or make the
build system work with latest build systems around once new major release is available
upstream will show you what I speak for.
P.S. 2. Two of my packages are failing because of this. I still haven't investigated
it but if moving to log4j2 is not easy it's my problem not log4j maintainer one (who
by the way is awesome guy and provides more support than people can ask for, making the
question even more unfair).
Red Hat Eclipse team
> On 05/21/2014 02:01 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>> Alexander Kurtakov
>> Red Hat Eclipse team
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Robert Rati" <rrati(a)redhat.com>
>>> To: "Fedora Big Data SIG" <bigdata(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>,
>>> discussions related to Fedora"
>>> <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>, "Fedora Java Development
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:03:42 PM
>>> Subject: Hadoop + log4j2 = fullstop
>>> I've been working on updating the hadoop package to the latest 2.4.0
>>> release and at this point I've resolved all the issues but I'm now
>>> blocked by the log4j2 update. log4j2 breaks the hadoop build pretty
>>> severely, and it doesn't seem the log4j2 team has spent much time
>>> thinking about how to provide backwards compatibility to existing
>>> log4j1.2 users. From my investigation of log4j2:
>>> log4j.properties file is no longer read at all
>>> configuration file is now in XML or JSON
>>> configuration file name is log4j2.[xml|json|jsn]
>>> V2 isn't backwards compatible with V1. There's a shim for v1 api but
>>> will only work for a limited set of cases, and for some cases it does
>>> work for it turns some operations into noop calls.
>>> This is a pretty major change and even the compatibility layer, if it
>>> will work for a project, does not seem to guarantee like functionality
>>> and minimally will require a re-do of all log4j configuration files a
>>> project ships. I'm not sure many sizable upstream projects would
>>> undertake/accept such a drastic change very quickly.
>>> The list of projects currently blocked by this update are:
>>> I would be surprised if there aren't a lot more. I understand Fedora is
>>> always pushing for the latest versions, but for some fundamental
>>> packages can there be compatibility packages introduced at the same time
>>> as an incompatible update?
>> Nothing stops compatibility packages from appearing. But it's the people
>> that need it that have to drive it. Everyone is time constrained so
>> whoever needs something must do it.
>> It's really is as simple as that.
>> Alexander Kurtakov
>> Red Hat Eclipse team
>>> Package maintainers of dependent packages
>>> will still need to touch their packages and determine if the new version
>>> will work for them. Providing a compat package will also allow packages
>>> to update to their newer versions while not held up on trying to
>>> integrate changes from a compatibility breaking dependency update.
>>> devel mailing list
>>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>> java-devel mailing list
java-devel mailing list