----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Walluck" <david@xxxxxxxx> > To: java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:46:22 AM > Subject: Re: Fedora vs JPackage naming > > 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. Yes the choice is arbitrary and I'm not fan of this. But there is no size fits them all. This choices are made by the packagers if they feel that given artifacts are coming from the same project and it would help them even remotely to achieve their tasks(e.g. by allowing them to add single folder to classpath instead of enumerating dozens of jars manually) I can understand the reasoning. Plus in the guidelines there is a statement that if package installs more than 2 jars they should go into _javadir/name/ which at least for me makes it perfectly viable place for installation if your package is coming from the same source and you depend on that previous package. I'm sure that this eliminates a number of the arbitrary-looking choices but I guess this is not clearly stated in the guidelines thus I'll really appreciate someone with better English than mine to provide the rewording needed and get the guidelines updated. We should always strive for cleaner guidelines. Alex > -- > java-devel mailing list > java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
