On 02/17/2012 01:33 AM, Alexander Boström wrote: > Nope: > > * If the package provides more than one JAR file, the > filenames assigned by the build MUST be used (without > versions). OK, but that is worse in a sense as it adds to the inconsitency even more. Maybe in this case the policy assumes that artifacts will be placed in a separate directory, %_javadir/%name? Although I have done this myself in a good number of packages, I am now advocating a flat structure in %_javadir using the upstream names (actually the name and full version equivalent to maven <artifactId>-<version>) only. Among the many problems with the non-flat approach is that it doesn't work with the resolvers provided by ivy or gradle very well, and at the same time, it lacks the maven dir structure so that can't be used with a maven resolver either. Basically, the current policy fails all relevant build use cases that I can come up with. I don't know how I can make my case stronger than it already is. I do not recall a single case of name collisions, but as you said, the policy does not prevent that anyway unless a separate directory is used. Another case is the current jboss work which is using %_javadir/jboss. Obviously, that dir name is not equal to %_javadir/%name (and it involves multiple separate packages all sharing and owning the dir %_javadir/jboss). Again, I think this choice is arbitrary and getting ridiculous and I can only reiterate what I've already stated on this topic. -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
