What is the current Fedora / JPackage relationship?

[Aaron Clark]

I've been looking to package up some java web frameworks and tools, but 
I've run into the issue of the fedora versions of some components being 
practically ancient, e.g. jakarta-commons-fileupload.  Now, this package 
was originally forked from JPackage, but appears to have stagnated in 
Fedora as opposed to JPackage which has continued on and has an 
up-to-date version in their repository.

What is the general guidance for java packages on Fedora?  Should a java 
user/developer go to JPackage for all their java needs (a la RPMFusion 
for your binary graphics drivers and patent encumbered codecs), or 
should Fedora itself be packaging everything that is needed?  Do any 
Fedora packages also contribute to JPackage?  Furthermore, for the more 
pressing issue of severely outdated dependencies, should we be rebasing 
to the current JPackage, updating the existing specs, or creating new, 
modernized specs to update the packages?

Thanks,
Aaron

[Anthony Green]

On 12/27/2009 07:22 PM, Aaron Clark wrote:
>  I've been looking to package up some java web frameworks and
> tools, 
>  but I've run into the issue of the fedora versions of some components 
>  being practically ancient, e.g. jakarta-commons-fileupload.  Now, this 
>  package was originally forked from JPackage, but appears to have 
>  stagnated in Fedora as opposed to JPackage which has continued on and 
>  has an up-to-date version in their repository. 
File a bug in Fedora's bugzilla against the outdated package asking the 
maintainer to upgrade.   You will usually see prompt action.

AG

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

>  I've been looking to package up some java web frameworks and
> tools, but
>  I've run into the issue of the fedora versions of some components being
>  practically ancient, e.g. jakarta-commons-fileupload.  Now, this package
>  was originally forked from JPackage, but appears to have stagnated in
>  Fedora as opposed to JPackage which has continued on and has an
>  up-to-date version in their repository.
>  
>  What is the general guidance for java packages on Fedora?  Should a java
>  user/developer go to JPackage for all their java needs (a la RPMFusion
>  for your binary graphics drivers and patent encumbered codecs), or
>  should Fedora itself be packaging everything that is needed?  Do any
>  Fedora packages also contribute to JPackage?  Furthermore, for the more
>  pressing issue of severely outdated dependencies, should we be rebasing
>  to the current JPackage, updating the existing specs, or creating new,
>  modernized specs to update the packages? 
I would say that most of the active Java
Fedora packagers have the same 
relationship with JPackage as with Debian - we just take what/when/if we need 
and let other maintainers do the same when we are better. 
Java packages in Fedora has grown to a big number but in a different direction 
- JPackage is working more on server-side things while work in Fedora is more 
for end-users/developers e.g. Eclipse, Netbeans, OOo, IntelliJ Idea (Fedora 13 
feature) and KDE/Nepomuk/Soprano integration (slowly advancing
). 

NOTE to all Eclipse users: If you install some/any of the Eclipse dependencies 
from JPackage it is almost sure that this will break your Eclipse environment 
due to missing OSGi metadata in JPackage rpms.

Regards,
Alex

>  
>  Thanks,
>  Aaron
>  
>  --
>  fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-java-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
>

[Mary Ellen Foster]

2009/12/28 Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com&gt;:
>  On 12/27/2009 07:22 PM, Aaron Clark wrote:
> >
> > I've been looking to package up some java web frameworks and tools, but
> > I've run into the issue of the fedora versions of some components being
> > practically ancient, e.g. jakarta-commons-fileupload.  Now, this package was
> > originally forked from JPackage, but appears to have stagnated in Fedora as
> > opposed to JPackage which has continued on and has an up-to-date version in
> > their repository.
>
>  File a bug in Fedora's bugzilla against the outdated package asking the
>  maintainer to upgrade.   You will usually see prompt action. 
Yeah, well, sometimes ...
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543446

MEF

-- 
Mary Ellen Foster -- http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/
Interaction Lab -- http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/InteractionLab
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University

Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity
number SC000278

[Aaron Clark]

On 12/28/2009 05:37 AM, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
> > File a bug in Fedora's bugzilla against the outdated package
> asking the
> > maintainer to upgrade.   You will usually see prompt action.
>
>  Yeah, well, sometimes ...
>       https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543446
>  
Yes, I saw this amongst your review requests (which I found very helpful 
as reference material).  There's no Java SIG, but is there a wiki page 
tracking which common packages (like Jakarta Commons) need version bumps 
or packaging?  Kind of like a java packaging wishlist?

Aaron

[Aaron Clark]

On 12/28/2009 02:19 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
> >
> > What is the general guidance for java packages on Fedora?  Should a java
> > user/developer go to JPackage for all their java needs (a la RPMFusion
> > for your binary graphics drivers and patent encumbered codecs), or
> > should Fedora itself be packaging everything that is needed?  Do any
> > Fedora packages also contribute to JPackage?  Furthermore, for the more
> > pressing issue of severely outdated dependencies, should we be rebasing
> > to the current JPackage, updating the existing specs, or creating new,
> > modernized specs to update the packages?
>  I would say that most of the active Java Fedora packagers have the same
>  relationship with JPackage as with Debian - we just take what/when/if we need
>  and let other maintainers do the same when we are better. 
Thanks for clearing that up.  I was confused by some of the wiki pages 
as to whether the approach was to get whatever people want/need into 
Fedora or as a default point them to JPackage.

>  Java packages in Fedora has grown to a big number but in a different
> direction
>  - JPackage is working more on server-side things while work in Fedora is more
>  for end-users/developers e.g. Eclipse, Netbeans, OOo, IntelliJ Idea (Fedora 13
>  feature) and KDE/Nepomuk/Soprano integration (slowly advancing
>  ). 
I guess that leads to the next question (which may be best for another 
thread)... Do we want to package up libraries as a supporting item to 
the Java development tools we currently ship?  How far down the road of 
serverside java development/deployment do we want to go?

Aaron

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

>  I guess that leads to the next question (which may be best for
> another 
>  thread)... Do we want to package up libraries as a supporting item to 
>  the Java development tools we currently ship?  How far down the road of 
>  serverside java development/deployment do we want to go? 
This is an easy question with simple answer: We want to go as far as there are 
volunteers ready to work on given products/topics and etc. :)

Alex

>  
>  Aaron
>