13:01:12 #startmeeting #startmeeting Java SIG -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Java 13:01:12 Meeting started Wed Mar 16 13:01:12 2011 UTC. The chair is sochotni. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:01:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 13:01:18 #meetingname java-sig 13:01:18 The meeting name has been set to 'java-sig' 13:01:24 #topic roll-call 13:01:32 Good afternoon 13:01:36 here :) 13:01:49 here 13:02:26 .fas pingou 13:02:27 pingou: pingou 'Pierre-YvesChibon' 13:02:40 #info mbooth akurtakov nthykier pingou sochotni attending 13:02:57 maybe more people will turn up during the meeting 13:03:34 #topic guidelines changes 13:04:33 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate 13:04:42 that is where changes have been happening 13:05:08 #link http://bit.ly/dLJLv4 is difference between current guidelines and draft 13:05:36 not many changes really 13:05:56 so it's use jpackage_script usage and maven 3.x usage recommendation 13:05:59 just maven2/3 distinction, jpackage_script addition 13:06:18 yes basically just that 13:06:38 I couldn't make "clean-binary-files" to work easily 13:06:47 does anyone has any objections? 13:07:00 Looks good to me :-) 13:07:31 stupid question but what works on maven3 will work on maven2 right ? 13:07:46 I would like to see a few additions to jpackage-utils (such as simplified macro for cleaning jars/class files) 13:07:48 pingou: nope 13:08:01 it might work but it's not mandatory 13:08:03 ok akurtakov so no need for a separate maven2/maven3 :) 13:08:08 weeell...answer is "should" :-) 13:08:12 pingou: I think the other way round. What works on Maven2 should work on Maven3 13:08:26 s/no// on my last sentence 13:09:04 pingou: we have quite a lot of packages depending on maven2 but we want to discourage its usage 13:09:08 pingou: not really, maven 3 (maven package) is able to build maven2 projects just fine (with a few exceptions that should be filed as bugs) 13:09:49 sochotni: ok that was my question :) 13:10:01 that's why we want to put guidelines on maven 3 and I would say trying to kill maven 2 for F-17 13:10:19 reduce usage to the minimum for F-16 13:10:24 deprecate for F-17 13:10:28 I was seeing this from a packager pov of java apps, if I have a maven2 app will it work with these new guideline, and from what I read answer is yes :) 13:10:37 yes it will 13:10:58 pingou: yes, I found just one app that didn't work so far and I have yet to figure out why exactly 13:11:05 it might have been my refactoring 13:11:36 pingou: note that upstream no longer care for maven 2 so we are on our own 13:12:46 now there is another guideline thing that is in the making... 13:12:48 JNI changes 13:13:23 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665576 64/32 bit jvm and JNI 13:14:08 the bug contains discussion on the topic to a big degree and I believe whatever solution comes out of that bug should be considered as a JNI guideline 13:14:29 it's not finished yet and I have a feeling it will take some time till the dust settles 13:17:01 so the question there was.. 13:17:25 do we skip the JNI for now and just focus on changes mentioned earlier? 13:18:38 Unless a concrete JNI proposal is going to emerge Soon(tm)... 13:18:41 another change I'd like to see is inclusion of %add_maven_depmap in guidelines but that won't happen before it's in jpackage-utils 13:19:03 let's skip jni for now 13:19:20 I would vote +1 for the first jni guideline 13:19:26 proposal 13:19:33 any guideline is better than none 13:20:10 ok, I changed the mvn template line to: 13:20:10 mvn-rpmbuild install javadoc:javadoc # javadoc:aggregate for multi-module projects 13:20:19 :) 13:20:33 +use ? 13:20:56 there :_) 13:20:59 sochotni: we might simplify by suggesting aggregate always 13:21:11 it works even for non multimodule 13:21:19 akurtakov: it does? 13:21:31 I remember it didn't 13:21:32 I'm pretty sure about this 13:21:41 let's check it after the meeting 13:21:51 (if so, then we can just mention javadoc:javadoc below as a possible alternative in case of problems) 13:22:04 such change could go in with the new macro 13:22:10 so are we skipping jni now? 13:22:51 akurtakov: ok, aggregate works for single module.. 13:23:00 by skipping you mean submit the new draft w/o including the results of the discussion on the bug mentionned earlier, right ? 13:23:44 pingou: I believe yes, we'd like to submit these changes ASAP and not wait for JNI resolution in that bug 13:24:04 +1 for me 13:24:12 When does the FPC meet next? 13:24:28 it might be tomorrow/thursday 13:24:38 or later today even? 13:24:50 eh, tomorrow is thursday :-) 13:25:07 Oh, might as well get your maven3 related updates approved straight away then :-) 13:25:09 every Wednesday at 16:00 UTC 13:25:13 FYI I changed the draft to have javadoc:aggregate 13:26:15 so formally +1 for the new guidelines changes and +1 for skipping jni for now 13:26:43 obviously +1 from me for both things 13:26:47 Yes 13:28:31 #agreed Submit new draft for FPC approval 13:28:41 #topic Tracker bug status 13:29:04 it looks much better than last time I'd say 13:29:11 10 bugs 13:29:42 there are few long standing reviews still 13:29:58 and idea/jps build failure 13:30:02 yes also a few non-review bugs that have been around for some time 13:30:44 I spoke to upstream about the java-gnome FTBFS, by the way 13:30:57 libnotify problem? 13:31:11 They should should have a new release out before F15 is release :-) 13:31:27 Yeah, libnotify had API changes 13:31:56 that's good 13:32:19 (that they will have release before f15, not that there were API changes :-) ) 13:32:34 the fix should be trivial, I wonder why no one did it 13:32:56 because noone cared enough ? 13:33:44 it is just just an extra parameter that should be removed from some call 13:34:07 same as the idea case - there is a workaround in the FTBFS bug but it is not applied and package is not rebuild 13:34:26 The bindings are programmatically generated... If it was that trivial, it should not broken? 13:35:09 I believe libnotify binding are not autogenerated 13:35:44 I see 13:37:19 I guess...open floor... 13:37:24 #topic open floor 13:37:45 Helios SR2 was released, I beleive... 13:37:58 Should we build updates only for Rawhide? 13:38:08 Or do you want SR2 in F15? 13:38:21 I definetely plan to push it to F-15 13:38:25 Cool 13:38:32 mbooth: not related but for now I add most of my packages to F15 still 13:38:35 but there is a problem with the browser integration 13:38:50 once it's fixed I'll do a F-15 build 13:39:12 sochotni: Me too, but eclipse is it's own little eco-system :-) 13:40:10 well, we tend to push SR releases to latest version 13:40:45 new releases only in development phase of a distro version 13:40:53 I mean new feature releases 13:41:03 Ok 13:41:15 mbooth: btw, I would really appreciate your help with pushing SR2 builds into rawhide 13:41:32 we can backport easily after that 13:41:50 akurtakov: are there any complications with SR2? 13:42:07 other than the browser integration 13:42:08 nthykier: except for the browsers no 13:42:12 Sure, I'll see what I can do 13:42:17 ok 13:43:52 ok, so that's it I guess? 13:44:06 we skipped tomcat 13:44:16 I didn't plan it 13:44:23 but noone do anything so yeah 13:44:30 yup 13:44:38 it's not a priority right now 13:44:50 too late for f15 and plenty of time till f16 13:44:58 #endmeeting