| 2 Nov 2024 |
 emily | okay the link in https://gist.github.com/wavezhang/ba8425f24a968ec9b2a8619d7c2d86a6?permalink_comment_id=3601058#gistcomment-3601058 works | 01:47:45 |
 Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Should we migrate javacard-devkit to by-name in the PR that makes it use OpenJDK /hj | 01:48:55 |
| emily | you gotta just delete it 😂 | 01:49:45 |
| emily | it does seem to run after jumping through those 50 hoops and it pointing me to URLs that no longer contain the ancient downloads | 01:51:03 |
| emily | but, given that there's newer versions that work on Linux and this package has been untouched since it was dumped into the tree in 2018 I see no good reason to keep it | 01:51:43 |
| emily | clearly nobody is looking after it | 01:52:49 |
| emily | putting work into it seems counterproductive | 01:53:00 |
| emily | if you want to just s/oraclejdk/jdk/ that's fine though | 01:53:20 |
| emily | but if it ever breaks I highly doubt we will hear about it | 01:53:41 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | In reply to@emilazy:matrix.org
okay the link in https://gist.github.com/wavezhang/ba8425f24a968ec9b2a8619d7c2d86a6?permalink_comment_id=3601058#gistcomment-3601058 works I love that there's parts of the thread that are just "Use https://adoptopenjdk.net" | 01:55:15 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | In reply to@emilazy:matrix.org
putting work into it seems counterproductive Yeah that seems reasonable. Let's drop it, I'm not sure if there are maintained alternatives | 01:56:25 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | * Yeah that seems reasonable. Let's drop it, I'm not sure if there are even maintained alternatives | 01:56:41 |
| emily | the maintained alternative is the upstream | 01:56:41 |
| emily | if someone wants to package the latest version they can do so | 01:56:49 |
| emily | gotta resist the mentality of being responsible for every package that the maintainers clearly haven't taken responsibility for | 01:58:37 |
| emily | a lesson I am bad at internalizing myself | 01:58:44 |
| Tomodachi94 (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 | 02:02:19 |
| Tomodachi94 (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 (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 |
| emily | 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 |
