On 02/22/2013 03:10 PM, Jon VanAlten wrote:
> That's assuming it's a maven artifact. But in general, I can sort
> of agree that guidelines that specify divergence from upstream are
> not exactly ideal. I wonder though, for xmvn and the automated
In the current guidelines, at least as implemented, most jars are
renamed from upstream. There's not even the policy of preferring the
upstream name by default. The policy seems to be to rename them from
upstream by default (at least with multiple jars).
This is independent of where the artifact comes from or how it is built,
since most ant artifacts would be uploaded to maven central, anyway. In
the past, the groupId was simply set to be the same as the artifactId.
Keep in mind that neither of these necessarily match what %{name} is in
Fedora, which is another reason why I find the policy so strange.
> No arguments here, my concern is more about conflicts among different
> sections of the guidelines. If we make changes, I'd like to see them
> be as newbie-proof as possible. If one section says A and another B,
> I can see the possibility of this being a repeated question on list
> and/or new package review BZ.
My point is that the requirement really depends on whether java-devel
can be guaranteed to be pulled in indirectly or not. It absolutely is
required in terms of needing to be present in the build root.
The issue is whether it really needs to be specified or not, and this
depends on the policy of the build tools Requires if it's not going to
be MUST, then it MUST be the case that the build tool will pull it in.
--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
