Re: The trouble with metadata-extractor

2013-10-28 Thread Andrea Musuruane 
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky

>  > If it helps, if it makes things easier, I can release the ownership of
> > metadata-extractor and someone else can have good care. I just
> > packaged it because, as an openstreetmap mapper, I longed to have JOSM
> > in Fedora
>
> 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.
>
>
I will orphan metadata-extractor and gettext-commons soon. There are just
two bugs, recently opened, about the removal of versioned jars:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022142
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022100

CC'ing JOSM maintainer because he will be severely affected.

Regards,

Andrea.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: The trouble with metadata-extractor

2013-10-22 Thread punto...@libero.it 

Il 22/10/2013 18:33, Stanislav Ochotnicky ha scritto:

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
 metadata-extractor2
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


it was just that I was referring to in my private email. from which 
badly was extracted part of the contents

regards

<>-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: The trouble with metadata-extractor

2013-10-22 Thread Stanislav Ochotnicky 
Ugh, what a mess..

Quoting Andrea Musuruane (2013-10-20 23:37:54)
> Hi all,
> last April the following bug report was opened:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947457
> 
> 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 that
> meanwhile, a new review request for a newer version of
> metadata-extractor was approved and now it is part of Fedora:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563

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
confusing.

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
latest upstream.

> 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
> tika.

Frankly...I'd rather ask for clarification. I have trouble understanding some
people

> I think all this have been handled very badly. He could have told why
> 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
other AFAIK.

> I still think that my original plan (i.e. patching JOSM). was more sensible.

Agreed

> 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
metadata-extractor2
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 of
> metadata-extractor and someone else can have good care. I just
> packaged it because, as an openstreetmap mapper, I longed to have JOSM
> in Fedora

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 
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: The trouble with metadata-extractor

2013-10-22 Thread punto...@libero.it 

Il 22/10/2013 17:54, Andrea Musuruane ha scritto:

I send again the following post. I can't believe not to get an opinion :)

Bye,

Andrea.



hi


On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Andrea Musuruane > wrote:


Hi all,
last April the following bug report was opened:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947457

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.

This evening the submitter emailed me privately and I discovered that
meanwhile, a new review request for a newer version of
metadata-extractor was approved and now it is part of Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563

As I understand now, newer metadata-extractor is required by Apache
Sorl and Apache Tika, which are not yet part of Fedora.


wrong, Apache tika is already part of Fedora
and for question of time only for import some new libraries for Wildfly 8.x
was disabled a module (tika-parsers 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650)

but is required also , by some Bigdata (hadhoop) packages


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
tika.


no i havent any trouble for me is the same


I think all this have been handled very badly. He could have told why
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.

I still think that my original plan (i.e. patching JOSM). was more
sensible.

What to do now? What do you think?

If it helps, if it makes things easier, I can release the ownership of
metadata-extractor and someone else can have good care. I just
packaged it because, as an openstreetmap mapper, I longed to have JOSM
in Fedora.


regards
gil


Regards,

Andrea.






<>-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: The trouble with metadata-extractor

2013-10-22 Thread Andrea Musuruane 
I send again the following post. I can't believe not to get an opinion :)

Bye,

Andrea.



On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote:

> Hi all,
> last April the following bug report was opened:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947457
>
> 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.
>
> This evening the submitter emailed me privately and I discovered that
> meanwhile, a new review request for a newer version of
> metadata-extractor was approved and now it is part of Fedora:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563
>
> As I understand now, newer metadata-extractor is required by Apache
> Sorl and Apache Tika, which are not yet part of Fedora.
>
> 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
> tika.
>
> I think all this have been handled very badly. He could have told why
> 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.
>
> I still think that my original plan (i.e. patching JOSM). was more
> sensible.
>
> What to do now? What do you think?
>
> If it helps, if it makes things easier, I can release the ownership of
> metadata-extractor and someone else can have good care. I just
> packaged it because, as an openstreetmap mapper, I longed to have JOSM
> in Fedora.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrea.
>
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: The trouble with metadata-extractor

2013-10-20 Thread punto...@libero.it 

Il 20/10/2013 23:37, Andrea Musuruane ha scritto:

Hi all,
 last April the following bug report was opened:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947457

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.

This evening the submitter emailed me privately and I discovered that
meanwhile, a new review request for a newer version of
metadata-extractor was approved and now it is part of Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563

As I understand now, newer metadata-extractor is required by Apache
Sorl and Apache Tika, which are not yet part of Fedora.

wrong, Apache tika is already part of Fedora
and for question of time only for import some new libraries for Wildfly 8.x
was disabled a module (tika-parsers 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650)

but is required also , by some Bigdata (hadhoop) packages


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
tika.

no i havent any trouble for me is the same

I think all this have been handled very badly. He could have told why
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.

I still think that my original plan (i.e. patching JOSM). was more sensible.

What to do now? What do you think?

If it helps, if it makes things easier, I can release the ownership of
metadata-extractor and someone else can have good care. I just
packaged it because, as an openstreetmap mapper, I longed to have JOSM
in Fedora.

regards
gil

Regards,

Andrea.


<>-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

The trouble with metadata-extractor

2013-10-20 Thread Andrea Musuruane 
Hi all,
last April the following bug report was opened:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947457

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.

This evening the submitter emailed me privately and I discovered that
meanwhile, a new review request for a newer version of
metadata-extractor was approved and now it is part of Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563

As I understand now, newer metadata-extractor is required by Apache
Sorl and Apache Tika, which are not yet part of Fedora.

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
tika.

I think all this have been handled very badly. He could have told why
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.

I still think that my original plan (i.e. patching JOSM). was more sensible.

What to do now? What do you think?

If it helps, if it makes things easier, I can release the ownership of
metadata-extractor and someone else can have good care. I just
packaged it because, as an openstreetmap mapper, I longed to have JOSM
in Fedora.

Regards,

Andrea.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct