On Tue, 2022-06-28 at 22:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > That's part of what makes it hard to discuss things with you:
> > the proposal _explicitly_ says that only some libraries will be bundled.
> > (There's a separate section about this!)
> > So
One thing I forgot in my previous reply to this post:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> As you say, it's "SHOULD", and the maintainers argue that it'll be much
> easier for them to do it in this way.
I believe that the rationale for doing the opposite of a SHOULD ought to be
much stronger
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> That's part of what makes it hard to discuss things with you:
> the proposal _explicitly_ says that only some libraries will be bundled.
> (There's a separate section about this!)
> So it's not "all-bundled" but "some of the low-level libs are bundled".
I am
On 6/28/22 09:35, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 28/06/2022 15:29, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> We can treat this as an experiment. The hope is that Java upstream is
>> big enough to be able to release updates for any CVEs in a timely manner,
>> and that the RHEL/Fedora maintainers
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:35:35PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > I don't think it makes sense to restart the discussion here. I disagree
> > that there was (any) consensus on the mailing list. If you feel that it's
> > better to use a non-Fedora JRE,
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 10:18, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 28/06/2022 15:52, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > Since I do not see this decision changing, it is probably time for
> > people negatively affected by this change to set up a COPR or some other
> >
On 28/06/2022 15:52, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Since I do not see this decision changing, it is probably time for
people negatively affected by this change to set up a COPR or some other
build system which builds the packages as they were previously.
I think it will be better to introduce the
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:05:32PM +0200, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
>
>
> Am 28.06.22 um 14:51 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 02:41:42PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>
> > > > It certainly is not true that the feedback was not considered by FESCo:
> > > >
On Tue, Jun 28 2022 at 03:29:33 PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
We can treat this as an experiment. The hope is that Java upstream is
big enough to be able to release updates for any CVEs in a timely
manner,
and that the RHEL/Fedora maintainers are able to provide updates in a
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 09:37, Kevin Kofler via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > I don't think it makes sense to restart the discussion here. I disagree
> > that there was (any) consensus on the mailing list. If you feel that it's
> > better to
On 28/06/2022 15:29, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
We can treat this as an experiment. The hope is that Java upstream is
big enough to be able to release updates for any CVEs in a timely manner,
and that the RHEL/Fedora maintainers are able to provide updates in a timely
manner. If it turns
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I don't think it makes sense to restart the discussion here. I disagree
> that there was (any) consensus on the mailing list. If you feel that it's
> better to use a non-Fedora JRE, that's certainly possible, please just do
> that if you want to. Personally, I
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:05:32PM +0200, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
>
>
> Am 28.06.22 um 14:51 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 02:41:42PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>
> > > > It certainly is not true that the feedback was not considered by FESCo:
> > > >
Am 28.06.22 um 14:51 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 02:41:42PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
It certainly is not true that the feedback was not considered by FESCo:
there was a long discussion on IRC, and FESCo members also participated in
the mailing
On 6/28/22 08:08, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 07:21:33AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/28/22 05:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>> We have one ticket tagged with 'meeting', but there has been no
>>> progress in discussion or implementation, so
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 02:41:42PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > The whole proposal consists of a few parts. The part that was voted on
> > was the first part. Various people opposed the whole proposal, but it
> > was the later parts that raised the
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> The whole proposal consists of a few parts. The part that was voted on
> was the first part. Various people opposed the whole proposal, but it
> was the later parts that raised the stronger opposition.
I and others have also objected to the entire concept of
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 02:24:17PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 02:07:54PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > #2794 F37 Change proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree
> > > #libraries and with static
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 02:07:54PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > #2794 F37 Change proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree
> > #libraries and with static stdc++lib
> > APPROVED: FESCo approves the use of bundled libraries and static
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 07:21:33AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 6/28/22 05:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > We have one ticket tagged with 'meeting', but there has been no
> > progress in discussion or implementation, so I'm cancelling today's
> > meeting.
>
> Hmm. That would be
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> #2794 F37 Change proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree
> #libraries and with static stdc++lib
> APPROVED: FESCo approves the use of bundled libraries and static libstdc++
> for building Java (+5, 1, -0)
WTF, why???
The feedback in the mailing
On 6/28/22 05:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> We have one ticket tagged with 'meeting', but there has been no
> progress in discussion or implementation, so I'm cancelling today's
> meeting.
Hmm. That would be https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2804
I don't really know what else I'm
We have one ticket tagged with 'meeting', but there has been no
progress in discussion or implementation, so I'm cancelling today's
meeting.
We've had a glitch in the process, and various tickets which were
voted and approved offline were not announced. I'll do that now here
in one fell swoop,
23 matches
Mail list logo
