On 02/22/2013 02:43 PM, Jon VanAlten wrote:
> Under Filenames:
> "Alternatively, the file can be installed to the subdirectory
> %{_javadir}/%{name}/ under its usual name."
>
> It seems like the guidelines are intended to provide an obvious
> mapping from package name to jar file name. This loophole breaks
> the mapping. I'm not sure why, what problem is this trying to
> solve (that isn't solved by a symlink with the usual name)?
I have disagreed with the Fedora naming and location policy for a long
time now. This includes the fact the JNI-using jars presumably should
not have a separate directory as this is not the case in the upstream
maven repositories, which require it to have a unique artifactId instead.
In my option, a package MUST use the upstream jar names. Do you really
want to continue to have jar names that only exist in Fedora? This must
be a confusion for both developers and packagers with no real gain that
I can think of.
Of course, in a flat layout we sometimes find a jar name that has no
indication of which project it came from. It it not clear what to do in
that case (placing in %{_javadir}/<project name> is an option, although
if I were to do it over I would probably use the maven groupId instead.).
> but... under Specfile Template for Apache Maven:
> "# BR java-devel only if you need specific version
> [BuildRequires: java-devel >= java version]"
I think maven(-local) should already Requires: java-devel such that if
you're building with maven this should already be covered.
One might say the same for ant, although there is a could case to be
made for splitting the `ant' executable script from the `ant' jar artifact.
--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
