This past weekend I finally decided to jump off the cliff and attempt
to re-launch the Java SIG. It seems there's some interest in keeping
the Java stack maintained, it's just not focused or organized right
What we did when starting the Stewardship SIG seems to have worked out
pretty well, so I'm trying to follow in those footsteps here:
- new proper FAS / pkgdb group: java-maint-sig ("java-sig" is occupied
by an old, unused bot account)
- new private mailing list: java-maint-sig (for RHBZ bugs - so,
possibly, also CVEs - hence, private)
- tracking project on pagure: https://pagure.io/java-maint-sig (for
maintenance scripts, tracking tickets, awesome package dashboards,
There's already a public fedora mailing list for Java (java-devel),
and and IRC channel (#fedora-java on freenode.net), which we will
continue to use. Sadly, the existing wiki page for the Java SIG is
hopelessly outdated, so I'm tempted to just scrap it and point readers
to the pagure tracking project once it's set up beyond a basic README
Major upcoming projects for the "new" Java Package Maintainers group include:
- managing OpenJDK 11 / Java 11 transition for hundreds of Java
packages in fedora 33
- starting to transition well-maintained Java packages from the
Stewardship SIG back into Java SIG
- possibly porting packages from gradle to maven to fix build issues
and broken dependencies
- transitioning from old java.net / JavaEE projects to the new ones
now under the eclipse-ee4j umbrella
I know that - among others - the PKI team, Neuro SIG, and Eclipse
maintainers depend on parts of the java stack for their packages, so I
hope that we can work together with them on these things, as well.
So, if you're interested, please consider joining this group effort.
I'll get new members set up with the FAS group / pagure project / mailing list.
Let's make this happen.
I just git a "broken dependencies" notice for a package that I maintain.
The reason is that "pdftk" got retired just the other day.
I may have missed a corresponding post on fedora-devel, but I think a
heads up notice to maintainers of depending packages may be in order
before you retire a package, as a general idea.
You see, unretiring a package is so much more work than changing
As for pdftk: I see 2 failed builds for version 1.45 and none for the
current version 2.02 (which probably breaks the api anyways). What are
the plans? Retire pdftk completely? Start fresh with pdftk2?
pdflabs, the maker of pdftk, provide binary as well as source rpms for
pdftk 2.02, by the way. I might even look into packaging it but don't
want to duplicate any existing efforts.
I plan to update assimp from 3.3.1 to the latest release (5.0.1) in
rawhide this week. The following packages will be affected:
I will take care of the rebuilds and any fallout/updates that need to
Given Hans proposal  introduced systemd/grub2/Gnome upstream changes
it beg the question if now would not be the time to stop supporting
booting in legacy bios mode and move to uefi only supported boot which
has been available on any common intel based x86 platform since atleast
Now in 2017 Intel's technical marketing engineer Brian Richardson
revealed in a presentation that the company will require UEFI Class 3
and above as in it would remove legacy BIOS support from its client and
datacenter platforms by 2020 and one might expect AMD to follow Intel in
So Intel platforms produced this year presumably will be unable to run
32-bit operating systems, unable to use related software (at least
natively), and unable to use older hardware, such as RAID HBAs (and
therefore older hard drives that are connected to those HBAs), network
cards, and even graphics cards that lack UEFI-compatible vBIOS (launched
before 2012 – 2013) etc.
This post is just to gather feed back why Fedora should still continue
to support legacy BIOS boot as opposed to stop supporting it and
potentially drop grub2 and use sd-boot instead.
Share your thoughts and comments on how such move might affect you so
feedback can be collected for the future on why such a change might be
bad, how it might affect the distribution and scope of such change can
be determined for potential system wide proposal.
Recently I've reported some Big Endian related test failures to an
upstream project .
I was asked by an upstream project maintainer, whether I know some free
Continuous Integration services where they can easily run their
testsuite on Big Endian.
* Upstream uses Travis CI to test on x86_64 Linux (Ubuntu)
* Upstream uses AppVeyor to test on Microsoft Windows
* It's a pure Python project, noarch, but some changes need to be done
when loading/saving binary data (LE) with NumPy on BE system.
What I've considered:
* COPR (but there is no big endian arch)
* (Ab)using Koji (I guess that would be considered a bad practice?)
* using QUEMU on Travis CI 
Any better tips? Thanks
I just had to setup a new machine, and new ssh keys.
I chose my new id_rsa.pub to upload.
But I get:
git push --verbose
Pushing to ssh://email@example.com/mercurial
Permission denied (publickey).
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
After review, Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public License
v1 (SSPL) is not a Free Software License.
It is the belief of Fedora that the SSPL is intentionally crafted to be
aggressively discriminatory towards a specific class of users.
Additionally, it seems clear that the intent of the license author is to
cause Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt towards commercial users of software
under that license. To consider the SSPL to be "Free" or "Open Source"
causes that shadow to be cast across all other licenses in the FOSS
ecosystem, even though none of them carry that risk.
It is also worth nothing that while there is a draft for a "v2" of the SSPL:
A) It is not final.
B) It is not in use anywhere at this time (as far as we know).
C) The intent of the v2 draft text is not changed from the v1 license
currently in use.
We have updated our "Bad License" list to include SSPLv1. No software
under that license may be included in Fedora (including EPEL and COPRs).
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 15:47:00 +0100, J. Scheurich wrote:
> > I'd like to get this package reviewed please:
> > - python-pyscaffold: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913#
> > Would anyone like to swap reviews?
> I would review it for wdune sponsoring.
Sorry---I'm not current with the wdune scenario. I assumed you meant
that you'd review it unofficially as part of the work to get sponsored
to the packagers group:
I'm not a sponsor yet so I cannot sponsor you to the group myself, but
once you've done a few reviews, a sponsor will be happy to take a look
at them and guide you through the sponsorship process.
If you've submitted a review ticket for wdune already, I will be happy
to review it and provide comments.
Time zone: Europe/London