fre 2012-02-17 klockan 01:03 -0500 skrev David Walluck:
> 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.
Having the package %{name} somewhere in there helps to prevent namespace
collisions, so it makes sense in a way. Except that it doesn't because
the build's name is still there!
The current guidelines means that in most cases there'll either be a
%{name}.jar file or symlink or there'll be a directory %{name} with all
the jars in it. Except in the case where the package contains exactly to
jars. Yes, that's weird.
> In some cases, it's not even clear which artifact the packager is
> supposed to rename because there may be multiple (equally important)
> artifacts.
Nope:
* If the package provides more than one JAR file, the
filenames assigned by the build MUST be used (without
versions).
/Alexander
--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
