----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mikolaj Izdebski" <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:07:07 PM > Subject: Re: New Java guidelines > > > > I think we are talking about packages that already have POMs. > > > Maven > > > unaware packages can still install stuff in %_javadir. > > > > Well, we speak about cases where the fedora package has a pom.xml. > > Many times it's simply picked from maven central and has nothing to > > do with the upstream maintainers (many times this poms are plain > > wrong too). And this causes problems - ant, rhino, ecj, etc. - we > > fought problems with all of their maven central pom.xml files (some > > of them e.g. ant ship their proper pom.xml files now, but many > > don't). > > Any bugs in package POM files should be fixed on per-package basis > and > should not prevent clean and legitimate POMs from doing things like > forming Maven repository. While I agree with this in general. The bugs in this case is actually installing pom.xml files that are not upstream. So yes - this needs to be done on case by case - but before introducing some weird naming which someone came with the pom.xml needs to be upstreamed first so we don't came with jar name with crap like in the ecj package. And this is a very long, very very long process. Example: ecj package ships pom.xml(http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ecj.git/tree/core-3.3.0-v_771.pom) using org.eclipse.jdt:core with additional depmap org.eclipse.tycho:org.eclipse.jdt.core (http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ecj.git/tree/ecj.spec#n119). Using each of those for %_javadir/%{groupid}/%{artifactId}/<version>/%{artifactId}-%{version}.jar structure will be equally wrong because according to upstream it should be org.eclipse.jdt:org.eclipse.jdt.core (http://git.eclipse.org/c/jdt/eclipse.jdt.core.git/tree/org.eclipse.jdt.core/pom.xml#n22) but this pom is unusable for people that rely on maven dependencies to resolve as deps are not recorded in the pom and etc.. Note that I don't question such thing being done for packages that has maven as their primary deployment system. But for cases like ecj putting in such a directory layout will be huge mistake as primary users of it has no idea about gid:aid nor rely on it at all so asking someone that requires on ecj (being gcc or eclipse) to look for the jar in some gid/aid/aid-version will not fix what David was complaining about but just move it from one group to another. People can make whatever symlinks they want in such cases but they should be just that *symlinks* as this is second thought for such packages (if a thought at all). Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
