15:09:53 #startmeeting Stewardship SIG Meeting (2019-10-15) 15:09:53 Meeting started Tue Oct 15 15:09:53 2019 UTC. 15:09:53 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 15:09:53 The chair is decathorpe. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:09:53 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:09:53 The meeting name has been set to 'stewardship_sig_meeting_(2019-10-15)' 15:10:02 #meetingname stewardship-sig 15:10:02 The meeting name has been set to 'stewardship-sig' 15:10:08 #topic Roll Call 15:10:20 \o 15:10:21 sorry for the delay, I lost track of time during dinner 15:10:34 #chair cipherboy 15:10:34 Current chairs: cipherboy decathorpe 15:10:44 mhroncok: \o 15:11:32 decathorpe: I reviewed the agenda, looks good. TODO is the one I'm a bit fuzzy about. 15:11:40 the agenda looks a bit boring I think. we only got a new CVE issue for commons-comoress 15:11:48 *commons-compress 15:12:03 but we can just merge the recent rawhide update back into stable branched 15:12:10 decathorpe: I'll ACK backport from rawhide. 15:12:29 I'll get to it later today :) 15:12:50 you mean you're unsure about the TODO.md file I added to the repo? 15:13:13 Yeah but we can get to that in time. :) 15:13:48 #topic TODO Items 15:13:56 I have nothing else to talk about ;) 15:14:05 Ah ok :) 15:14:27 in general, I created this list from the current build status of resteasy and its deps 15:14:50 though things might change once you build it with reduced dependency set 15:16:10 regarding your metrics question on the ticket: we're now at 71% of packages being up to date 15:17:48 Ah I guess I own half of these packages, that's why I'm not familiar with them. ;-0 15:18:12 yeah I opened some PRs against your packages as well 15:18:21 I fixed 2/3 Jackson packages 15:18:34 decathorpe: I think I need to change my email account on Fedora from my personal to my work. 15:18:43 decathorpe: Messages keep getting lost :/ 15:18:52 that's not good 15:18:57 😅 15:21:31 there's one thing I wanted to mention - seems like people are going to judge our work by whether we manage to update maven to 3.6 or not ... should we start working on that? 15:21:58 Wait, do we maintain the ursine Maven? 15:23:23 And outside of updating the packages we maintain to the latest versions, does this involve a lot of upstream work? 15:23:36 I'd say lots of upstream work is outside of scope for _this_ SIG. 15:23:56 Same with updating to JDK 11: that's driven by the Java SIG. We can do whatever we need to to fix breakage, but we're also not going to do lots of upstream work for that either. 15:24:14 cipherboy: we do 15:24:45 cipherboy: there's already a maven-3.6 branch, we could probably reuse most of the work from there 15:24:45 decathorpe: Ah I see that now. Is maven 3.6 in modular? 15:24:49 yes 15:25:17 ACK, then I'd go for it. Its not a priority for dogtag since we don't use maven, but I don't know whodoes. 15:25:34 everything that's not building with ant :) 15:25:43 :) Okie dokie 15:25:48 (We build with CMake but we're weird) 15:26:08 heh 15:26:28 https://github.com/picketbox/picketbox/ 15:26:29 * cipherboy sighs 15:26:41 Wonder if it moved somewhere. 15:26:46 ooof 15:27:10 The website is even worse: https://picketbox.jboss.org/downloads 15:27:19 5.1.0.Final is latest -- but 3.0.0 on the website. 15:27:45 looks like someone resurrected it here: https://github.com/picketbox-back 15:28:06 though 2012 seems a bit ... old 15:28:07 Yeah, I'll take a look at all the deps in the TODO list and update them. 15:28:16 decathorpe: Yeah, that's older than 5.1.0.Final -- 2018 15:28:25 :( 15:28:32 decathorpe: I'll poke some JBoss folks. 15:28:40 are they still around? 15:28:46 JBoss is still around :) 15:28:59 I'll ask resteasy team how they're using picketbox and if they know of a more recent fork. 15:29:00 you mean, like haunting us? 15:29:17 Hmmm, no, we're haunting them. 15:29:36 possible 15:30:37 by the way, have you seen the google spreadsheet link I sent / linked from the README? I find it really useful to get a quick overview of how we're doing 15:31:50 Nifty :) 15:32:18 yeah I started going through at all the outdated stuff a few weeks ago 15:32:42 and it left some scars :) 15:33:09 like, upstream is dead, java.net doesn't exist anymore, where are you supposed to download sources from? :/ 15:34:29 but it was really useful to figure out the "package name" <-> "groupId:artifactID" mapping ... 15:36:42 cipherboy: by the way, before I forget: if you want to build some packages for f31 but need something that's not been pushed to stable yet, feel free to ping me, then I can set up the buildroot overrides 15:39:43 ACK, will do :) 15:40:04 sorry, was talking in other meeting. 15:40:10 But yeah, that mapping is good to have ;) 15:40:25 Doesn't eclipse own most of the EE packages now? So GitHub I think has some stuff. 15:40:52 cipherboy: no problem 15:40:58 yeah but they don't have everything 15:41:04 Ah, that's yucky. 15:41:09 only *most things*, which makes this terrible 15:41:24 some of our packages don't have an upstream anymore. yay 15:41:38 Are those annotated somehow? 15:41:53 I started marking them with "BORKED (dead)" 15:42:05 ah, gotcha. 15:42:20 I also thought about creating "new" upstream projects for them ... I assume fedora is not the only distro with this problem? 15:42:41 What's broken about Java 9? 15:42:49 that package requires Java 9 15:42:53 and we don't have it yet :) 15:43:09 We might want to check with Debian/Ubuntu maintainers to see what they're doing but no point rushing it. 15:43:13 We have JDK11? 15:43:22 yeah 15:43:35 but it's not the default JDK. so you can't build things with it 15:43:37 Not that I'm an expert though, but you could compile with JDK11 and target JDK 8... 15:43:44 Oh, really? What's the point of having things available with it? 15:43:48 **of having it available? 15:43:55 you can *run* things on it 15:44:09 `alternatives --update java java-11-openjdk` or something like that 15:44:11 Debian will let you build with JDK8 even though JDK11 is the default, FWIW. But then they removed JDK8 >.> 15:44:18 heh 15:44:27 Can you link the formal requirements? 15:44:39 Is this something we need to bother the Java SIG about, or the packaging committee? 15:44:42 for gson? 15:45:00 No, for Java version used to build in Fedora. :) 15:45:06 ah. no idea 15:45:38 but IIRC gson failed to build because it uses either Modules or other Java 9 features, and our default target is 1.8 (or even 1.7? I don't remember) 15:46:11 I think we could try targetting JDK 8 with JDK11 compiler. Then users can run with JDK8 or JDK11 I think. 15:46:26 Hmm, not sure how modules interact with JDK8, I assume they're just ignored. :) 15:46:37 heh. I wish 15:46:53 I had to do some weird POM hacking to make maven ignore module specific stuff 15:47:12 I'll see what I can dig up and see if we can't get the rules changed somewhat. 15:47:25 Seems weird that we'll baby Python users and not do the same for Java users. 15:47:27 Inconsistent at least. 15:47:50 people actually care about python though 15:48:24 Whats the deal with gson? 15:48:36 Is there a build log? 15:48:50 hey mbooth o/ 15:49:30 I tried building 2.8.6 but maven gave up, and from what I was able to understand, it only likes Java 9 now 15:50:09 decathorpe: mbooth: https://github.com/google/gson/blob/master/pom.xml#L69-L74 15:50:26 cipherboy: ah, yeah, exactly 15:50:47 The commit isn't helpful: https://github.com/google/gson/commit/c18813884285493e69d94f004c294f539cc49828 15:51:31 https://github.com/google/gson/commit/0e90771e455cd5db201b7beaa2456ffdf50c78f2#diff-600376dffeb79835ede4a0b285078036 -- looks like they're having issues with JDK8 support. 15:51:55 They did add a module though (which only supports JDK9+) 15:51:58 https://github.com/google/gson/commit/7ddac52748c59228cb86d08d60b417ce737a0563#diff-600376dffeb79835ede4a0b285078036 15:53:27 Eh, you can probably just revert that commit for now: https://github.com/google/gson/commit/c18813884285493e69d94f004c294f539cc49828 15:53:57 mbooth: I'll try! :) 15:54:17 Until Java >9 becomes default I don't think it matters. I'd be extremely surprised if there was another package in Fedora that has JPMS requirements on gson 15:54:36 OSGi is much much much much much much more widely used 15:54:42 And will be for a long time 15:54:50 mbooth: Can't you build with JDK11 and target JDK8 byte code? 15:55:07 mbooth: Or does the packaging committee not like that? 15:55:30 cipherboy: hey, I'm still here o/ 15:55:32 cipherboy: You'll get both JDKs in the buildroot and java 8 will be used because it is default IIRC 15:55:53 mbooth: I think you'd have to much with alternatives in the .spec file ... 15:56:05 which probably wouldn't even work 15:56:12 Exactly, which is... nasty even it works 15:56:55 * mbooth wishes Java adopted OSGi instead of re-inventing the wheel 15:57:01 Oh well 15:57:16 Okie dokie. 15:57:16 reinventing the wheel is a bit of a programmer's affliction, I think 15:58:19 * mbooth covers the "programmer" label on his badge 15:58:33 * decathorpe as well 15:59:26 alright, our time's up. if there's anything else, just open a ticket or write in #fedora-stewardship 15:59:36 thanks guys! 15:59:38 mbooth++ 15:59:45 #endmeeting