Ugh, what a mess..
Quoting Andrea Musuruane (2013-10-20 23:37:54)
last April the following bug report was opened:
As I stated on bugzilla, metadata-extractor was just needed by JOSM.
Updating metadata-extractor would break JOSM. Anyway I suggested to
patch JOSM to use a newer version of metadata-extractor if he really
needed it. I had no response at all.
BTW, I am metadata-extractor maintainer, and not JOSM maintainer.
Sorry but it is your responsibility as maintainer to keep the package up to date
as much as possible. If JOSM required older version you should work with JOSM
maintainer and upstream to update it to latest (providing patches/testing etc.)
Why are you even maintaining metadata-extractor if you have no use for it? It
only makese sense for JOSM maintainer to maintain metadata-extractor in the
first place since he's the only user of the library
This evening the submitter emailed me privately and I discovered
meanwhile, a new review request for a newer version of
metadata-extractor was approved and now it is part of Fedora:
I don't like the naming of the package, both are metadata-extractor 2.x. If
anything new package should have been metadata-extractor26. Technically the
review was OK, the packages do not conflict in any way, but they are helluva
All in all, even if JOSM couldn't be ported it would have been better to package
metadata-extractor-compat solely for JOSM and then just update extractor to
As I understand now, newer metadata-extractor is required by Apache
Sorl and Apache Tika, which are not yet part of Fedora.
Already are as was mentioned
He asked me to "exchange our repository" "to simplify
some build with
maven". And with that I presume that he would like to have his package
called metadata-extractor because he has troubles to build sorl and
Frankly...I'd rather ask for clarification. I have trouble understanding some
I think all this have been handled very badly. He could have told
he needed a more recent version of metadata-extractor in the first
place, the reviewer of #1004563 could have checked if the package
followed the naming guidelines and/or have checked if the package was
already in Fedora.
The review was technically OK, there was one question from reviewer missing: Why
cannot you use version already in Fedora and what have you done to fix that?
Other than that the packages don't really conflict or cause any issues to each
I still think that my original plan (i.e. patching JOSM). was more
What to do now? What do you think?
Ideally? I'd say:
1. Update metadata-extractor to latest upstream, add maven metadata, shell
script in /usr/bin/ etc. Basically overwrite metadata-extractor with current
2. Sort out JSOM breakage afterwards. Either package metadata-extractor-compat,
or patch JSOM (ideally going to upstream with the patch afterwards)
3. Obsolete/deprecate metadata-extractor2
4. Wham someone with a cluestick
If it helps, if it makes things easier, I can release the ownership
metadata-extractor and someone else can have good care. I just
packaged it because, as an openstreetmap mapper, I longed to have JOSM
Libraries should be generally maintained by people who are actually using them
in some application. But it's up to you after all said and done if you want to
keep maintaining it.
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com