On 02/17/2012 12:03 AM, Alexander Boström wrote:
> tor 2012-02-16 klockan 14:58 -0500 skrev David Walluck:
>
>> Part of the problem is the horrible paractice of renaming a jar to the
>> package name.
>
> The guidelines already requires the name provided by the build to exist,
> either as a file or a symlink. The symlink case is:
Yes, but that is exactly what I am complaining about (what I called a
``horrible practice''. Well, actually I called it a ``paractice'', but
that was only because I don't have a spell checker right now).
If the upstream project has decided not to provide an artifact with the
name `%{name}', then why must we invent one? This only adds to the
naming confusion that this thread has been trying to address.
In some cases, it's not even clear which artifact the packager is
supposed to rename because there may be multiple (equally important)
artifacts. Besides, my first thought would be that I named the package
incorrectly---it would not be that the upstream project must have named
their *own* artifacts incorrectly so that I must invent a new and better
name. Does anybody actually think this?
We may say that we know better than upstream projects in certain areas.
I will freely admit that. But, I don't think that ``making up names'' is
one of them. And I also freely admit that sometimes the upstream project
changes its mind or makes names very generic, but this is not true of
the large majority of projects.
--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
