-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gary Benson wrote:
> Why is that a problem? Everything that gcc BuildRequires also
> BuildRequires gcc.
Personally, I would create two packages in this scenario: %{name} (with
javadocs enabled) and %{name}-bootstrap (without javadocs).
The idea is to not have cyclic dependencies. These are a nightmare when
building packages from scratch. A lot of times I see in your packages
``bootstrapped into fedora''. Well, this is nice for most people I
guess, but I don't consider it very free since you likely bootstrapped
off of a package built with Sun javac and now no one else can reproduce
it without much work. Granted, not many people would want to reproduce
it except me anyway, but in principle it's not very workable. Finally,
this isn't as bad as having prebuilt binary jar dependencies, and your
example about gcc is valid though I am not sure how it is avoidable.
As a related side-note: jonas is sitting in FC4 now, yet *many* packages
it requires are not even built for fedora---just Sun built and dropped
into the source tarball. At least here I would hope the non-existent
packages are filed in buzilla or someone's TODO list. As another side
note, I have made a package of jss which is a binary jar currently used
by ldapjdk, and I hope to push this out eventually. I believe xalan-j2
also has prebuilt jars in the build (I wish there was a list of these
packages somewhere).
- --
Sincerely,
David Walluck
<david@xxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDKUKKarJDwJ6gwowRAl1jAJ9tRaLI4tIw06Vev2GwSUaBbPIhRgCglsNO
FqWUJg/XAtzZLlhA5aSn0k8=
=cZXT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
