!aRKdLCkUeIFjRPZuJT:nixos.org

NixOS JVM

122 Members
27 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
2 Nov 2024
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)* If not for the listed maintainer that hasn't touched it since 2018, it would be eligible for dropping under that new RFC too (RFC 180)02:02:59
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)
In reply to@emilazy:matrix.org
gotta resist the mentality of being responsible for every package that the maintainers clearly haven't taken responsibility for
Yes, 100%, I've fallen into this trap several times
02:03:40
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily
In reply to @tomodachi94:matrix.org
If not for the listed maintainer that hasn't touched it since 2018, it would be eligible for dropping under that new RFC too (RFC 180)
we have regular silly disagreements about removing inactive maintainers
02:04:27
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilybut yes, under any reasonable policy that maintainer would be removed from Nixpkgs soon (no slight against them! just a reflection of reality that they aren't maintaining packages) and then this package would die a natural death a while after02:04:55
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyin the absence of functioning process, might as well skip to the conclusion02:05:10
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)Apparently Anderson Torres is drafting an RFC to drop vanishing maintainers too, but I have no clue when that will happen02:05:33
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)* Apparently Anderson Torres is drafting an RFC to drop "vanishing" maintainers too, but I have no clue when that will happen02:05:41
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilythere's an asymmetry in Nixpkgs where our package inclusion standards are very low – we let in so many packages that we can't afford to make it rough to drop dormant ones02:05:52
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily(not in contradiction with our review process being very bikesheddy: people will bikeshed all day about your Nix expression but rarely will they ask if it's worth packaging something at all)02:06:13
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)I'm going to make the drop PR and see if the maintainer cares at all02:06:30
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)If the maintainer doesn't respond in a few days, <Merge pull request> :)02:06:54
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilysure, maybe just roll it into the oraclejdk drop?02:07:03
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyand if you could update the manual section to not reference it in that one too that'd be great02:07:16
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)
In reply to@emilazy:matrix.org
sure, maybe just roll it into the oraclejdk drop?
Maybe. I'm going to hunt for CVEs for it as well, so there's slightly stronger justification
02:07:43
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyprobably not many people filing CVEs for a proprietary Java Card devkit I imagine02:08:04
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)* Maybe. I'm going to hunt for CVEs for javacard-devkit as well, so there's slightly stronger justification02:08:05
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyIMO the justification is: it depends on a package being removed for being an unmaintained security disaster, is many years of out of date compared to what we could be packaging (there are modern Linux versions: https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javacard-downloads.html#sdk-sim), and it has been untouched since 2018 so there is no reason to expect that the former two will be resolved (and it's not your job to do so)02:09:54
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)Yeah fair. I'm finding 3 CVEs for the hardware itself, but nothing for the devkit02:09:55
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)(meant to be in reply to your message before justification)02:10:56
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them) shakes fist at Atlassian Confluence & Crowd & Jira, and Docear packages for having an obscured dependency on oraclejre 02:19:21
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyoh boy02:21:40
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily
        Atlassian only supports the Oracle JRE (JRASERVER-46152).
02:21:49
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily🤡02:21:51
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)So much for dropping OracleJDK/JRE 🤡02:22:20
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyare you sure?02:22:27
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyyou assume that these packages are, themselves, maintained02:22:40
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilydamn apparently at least one of them is02:22:59
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyanyway, Atlassian definitely won't support running on an Oracle JDK from 202102:23:14
@tomodachi94:matrix.orgTomodachi94 (they/them)The Atlassian stuff is in the NixOS modules (I suspect it should actually be something configured in the package, but I digress)02:23:52
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyhttps://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRASERVER-4615202:24:01

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6