Re-Launching the Java SIG
by Fabio Valentini
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
now.
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,
etc.)
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hopelessly outdated, so I'm tempted to just scrap it and point readers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
file.
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.
Fabio
2 years, 7 months
pdftk retired?
by Michael J Gruber
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
maintainership.
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.
Michael
2 years, 7 months
Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)
by Ben Cotton
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271
== Summary ==
Autoconf upgrade from version 2.69 to the last upstream version 2.71 in Fedora.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:odubaj| Ondrej Dubaj]]
* Email: odubaj(a)redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
Upgrading autoconf from version 2.69 to version 2.71 according to new
upstream release. Version 2.70 is skipped due to multiple ABI
incompatibilities, where some of them were fixed in version 2.71.
Years of development differ these two releases, so problems are
expected.
This change might easily cause fails during builds of multiple
packages, as some of them still require autoconf-2.69. This step must
be properly discussed with maintainers of dependent packages, which
should forward this change proposal to their upstream projects.
== Benefit to Fedora ==
Brings a stable and up-to-date version of autoconf according to
upsteam release. It is expected, that in the future many upstream
development teams will use autoconf-2.71 as their default builder, so
Fedora will be prepared for such a step.
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
**Prepare autoconf-2.71 as RPM package for Fedora Rawhide
**Check software that requires `autoconf` or `autoconf-2.69` and
rebuild it with autoconf-2.71
**Build autoconf-2.71 to Rawhide in a side-tag
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_HOWTO#Creating_a_side-tag)
**Rebuild depended packages with autoconf-2.71 in the side-tag
**Merge the side-tag to Rawhide
* Other developers:
**Check if their packages can be build with autoconf-2.71
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue number]
* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives:
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
Problems during build can appear in multiple packages what can lead to
build failure, as multiple packages require autoconf-2.69 as their
upstream dependency. These problems have to be resolved before adding
autoconf-2.71 into Fedora. It seems aprox. 20% of dependent packages
are having problems during build, which could be caused by a problem
with same pattern.
== How To Test ==
Rebuilding your packages with autoconf-2.71 dependency in copr
(https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/odubaj/autoconf-2.70/).
Mass rebuild of dependent packages in a side tag.
== User Experience ==
Users will be able to use the newer version (2.71) of autoconf, and
building packages with autoconf-2.69 won't be available, as it won't
be present on the specific fedora version. This can affect 3rd partly
packages, which are not part of Fedora.
== Dependencies ==
Hundreds of packages have build dependency on autoconf, therefore it
is a huge step forward for Fedora, what should be properly discussed
and tested. List of dependent packages with their ability to be built
with autoconf-2.71 can be found in the given copr project
(https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/odubaj/autoconf-2.70/packages/)
We should also look at dependent packages of `libtool` and `automake`
(other critical autotools packages), as there might be some
incompatibilities with the new autoconf version.
== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism: moving this change to Fedora 36, if not
successfully finished until Fedora 35 branching from Rawhide
* Contingency deadline: Fedora 35 branching from Rawhide (2021-08-10)
* Blocks release? No
== Documentation ==
Latest autoconf documentation:
https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.70/...
== Release Notes ==
Release notes for autoconf-2.70:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autotools-announce/2020-12/msg00001.html
Release notes for autoconf-2.71:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autotools-announce/2021-01/msg00000.html
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
2 years, 7 months
The Death of Java (packages)
by Fabio Valentini
Hi everybody,
Long story short, I can no longer in good conscience be the primary
maintainer of (most) Java packages in Fedora. I am not using any of
them, I don't like Java or any other languages targeting the JVM, and
don't get me started on the horrid Java ecosystem. Recently I've been
spending 40-60 hours per week at my desk, and I just don't have the
capacity to feel guilty for not taking care of those packages any
longer.
New versions and even security issues have been piling up for months
(just look at the SIG's taiga board). Other people tried to step up
for the "new" Java SIG (@java-maint-sig), but other than myself,
nobody has been triaging new bugs in Java packages. Java package
maintainers from Red Hat have been exceptionally unhelpful, and have
not substantially contributed to Java packages in Fedora in years.
Even the Modules that were heralded as "the solution" have stagnated.
On the other hand, Mat Booth and two members of the DogTag PKI team
have been really helpful, but Mat is busy fighting the Eclipse
dumpster fire most of the time, and the other two have since both left
Red Hat for greener pastures. And since I see no way for the situation
to improve, there's only one honest thing left that I can do:
I will orphan all Java packages I am the main admin of, later today.
Since this is the majority of remaining Java software in Fedora (~180
packages), I expect at a decent amount of dependent packages will be
affected. However, given the utter lack of Java package maintainers
and the pitiful state of the overall language ecosystem, I would
strongly urge affected maintainers to drop dependencies on Java, if at
all possible.
Maybe other members of the java-maint-sig will pick up the orphaned
packages, if they're still here. Or maybe it's finally time to let
Java packages die. Nobody seems to care either way.
Fabio
2 years, 8 months
Stepping down as Fedora Jam maintainer
by Erich Eickmeyer
Hello all,
A little over a year ago, I came to the Fedora project to revive and
modernize the Fedora Jam project. I have successfully done that. My
vision was that it would be a great way to help develop and test the
most recent advancements in Linux audio.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, life has a way of changing for the good
or the bad. Back in November, I was offered an opportunity that I could
not pass-up: becoming the User Experience Director for the Kubuntu
Focus brand of laptops made by MindShareManagement. Since then, I have
become an integral member of that team, directly reporting to the CTO,
CEO, and President, working directly with the PR and Sales and
Marketing directors. It has been a blast, and is a project that works
directly with Ubuntu and Debian to create, as we put it, the "Ultimate
Linux Laptop". As a MOTU for Ubuntu, this was a perfect fit.
I didn't come here to be a shill for Ubuntu or to advertise my work,
but rather, to illustrate the level of involvement. It has taken up a
majority of my time, and my work with Ubuntu Studio is directly
involved with the project as well as both Ubuntu Studio and the Kubuntu
Focus laptop have similar synergies.
Because of the amount of time involved in these projects, something has
to give. For that reason, I must step-down as Fedora Jam maintainer. My
plan is to continue to maintain certain packages within Fedora (which,
admittedly, I've been slacking on), but I am orphaning the vast
majority of my packages. Here's the list:
Add64
dssi
dssi-vst
fedora-jam-backgrounds*
fedora-jam-kde-theme*
fluidsynth
fluidsynth-dssi
freqtweak
gnome-guitar
harmony-seq
hexter-dssi
jackctlmmc
jmeters
libinstpatch
lv2-c++-tools
lv2-fabla
lv2-ll-plugins
lv2-mdaEPiano
lv2-newtonator
lv2-sorcer
lv2-swh-plugins
lv2-vocoder-plugins
meterbridge
non-daw
portmidi
radium-compressor
realTimeConfigQuickScan
whysynth-dssi
xsynth-dssi
*These packages have pagure repos which I'd be happy to hand over to
whoever takes these.
I do want to thank everyone for the opportunity, including Matthew
Miller, Ben Cotton, Neal Gompa, and many others that helped me revive
this project. I'm sad to let it go, and I'm not sure what's going to
happen to it, but I hope someone who has a passion for the latest
technologies in Linux Audio and music production can take it over.
Thanks,
Erich Eickmeyer
2 years, 8 months
Fedora 34 Change: LTO Build Improvements (System-Wide Change proposal)
by Ben Cotton
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LTOBuildImprovements
== Summary ==
Currently all packages that are not opted out of LTO include
-ffat-lto-objects in their build flags. This proposal would remove
-ffat-lto-objects from the default LTO flags and only use it for
packages that actually need it.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:law | Jeff Law]]
* Email: law(a)redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
-ffat-lto-objects was added to the default LTO flags to ensure that
any installed .o/.a files included actual compiled code rather than
just LTO bytecodes (which are stripped after the install phase).
However, that is wasteful from a compile-time standpoint as few
packages actually install any .o/.a files.
This proposal would remove -ffat-lto-objects from the default LTO
flags and packages that actually need the option would have to opt-in
via an RPM macro in their .spec file. This should significantly
improve build times for most packages in Fedora.
To ensure that we can identify packages that need the opt-in now and
in the future, the plan is to pass to brp-strip-lto a flag indicating
whether or not the package has opted into -ffat-lto-objects. If
brp-strip-lto finds .o/.a files, but the package has not opted into
-ffat-lto-objects, then brp-strip-lto would signal an error.
== Benefit to Fedora ==
The key benefit to Fedora is improved package build times and lower
load on the builders.
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: The feature owner (Jeff Law) will need to settle on
a suitable RPM macro to indicate an opt-in to -ffat-lto-objects,
implement the necessary tests in brp-strip-lto and opt-in the initial
set of packages. This will be accomplished by doing the prototype
implementation locally, building all the Fedora packages to generate
the opt-in set. Committing the necessary opt-ins, then committing the
necessary changes to the RPM macros.
* Other developers: There should be minimal work for other
developers. The most likely scenarios where other developers will
need to get involved would include:
# Packages which are excluded from x86_64 builds and which need the
opt-in will need the appropriate package owners to add the opt-in.
# Packages which are FTBFS when the builds are run to find the set of
packages that need to opt-in and which need to opt-in will need
packager attention.
# It is possible that the faster builds may trigger build failures in
packages that have missing dependencies in their Makefiles. We saw a
few of these during the initial LTO work and those packages were
either fixed or -j parallelism removed. This work may expose more of
these problems.
I expect these all to be relatively rare occurences, but with 9000+
packages in Fedora I wouldn't be surprised if we see a few of each of
these issues.
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue
number] (a check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed) This
should have no release engineering impacts.
* Policies and guidelines: The packaging guidelines will need to be
updated to document the new macro.
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives: This proposal does not align with any
current Fedora Objectives.
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
This change should have zero impact on upgrade/compatibility. In
fact, the change should have no user visible impacts.
== How To Test ==
No special testing is needed. Any issues with this proposal will show
up as FTBFS issues.
== User Experience ==
Users should see no changes to the user experience.
== Dependencies ==
Packages which need to opt-in to -ffat-lto-objects will need their
.spec files updated to include the
new macro.
== Contingency Plan ==
If this can not be completed by final development freeze, then the RPM
macro changes would not be installed and the change could defer to
Fedora 35.
* Contingency mechanism: Proposal owner will only commit the RPM macro
changes once the opt-in package set has been identified and opt-ins
added to those package's spec files. So no special contingency
mechanism should be needed
* Contingency deadline: It is most beneficial to have this completed
before the mass rebuild; however, the drop dead date should be beta
freeze.
* Blocks release? No
* Blocks product? No
== Documentation ==
No upstream documentation. Packaging guidelines will need a minor update.
== Release Notes ==
I do not expect this change to require any release notes.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
2 years, 8 months
Assimp soname bump
by Rich Mattes
Hi,
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:
fawkes-0:1.3.0-11.fc33.src
mrpt-0:1.4.0-17.fc33.src
pioneer-0:20200203-1.fc33.src
vkmark-0:2017.08-0.8.20180123git68b6f23.fc32.src
I will take care of the rebuilds and any fallout/updates that need to
happen.
Rich
2 years, 8 months
How to easily automate test builds in a COPR project
by Richard Shaw
I maintain a suite of ham radio related packages. The developer is very
active and often creates test versions adding and incrementing the "tweak"
part of the version which is removed for the full releases and the patch
level incremented.
Currently I'm just trying to keep up with them by hand using pagure forks
of the official repos so I don't accidentally pollute SCM with the changes
and build them in COPR.
Things I need to manage automagically:
1. Monitor the test URLs to look for new versions.
I could write a bash script for this and add a cron or systemd timer but I
was hoping for something that took less time as I don't have a lot of that
:)
Would it be permissible to create a <package>-testing entry in
release-monitoring.org?
2. Trigger a "fedpkg clone" and add a tweak version.
This could probably be managed with macros easy enough, %{?tweak}, or
something like that. And then use a script to substitute into "%global
tweak ..."
3. I need to download the files from a different location.
%if %{?tweak}
... use difference Source0?
4. Build the packages in COPR.
Easy enough using a bash script but is there a better way?
Thanks,
Richard
2 years, 9 months
