On 01/14/2014 03:32 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > > I want to give our current packaging draft[1] to FPC for approval. The > diff is relatively big. See original announcement from October[2] for > more details. > > To simplify/speed up vote please reply to this email with +1 votes, or > comments if you'd like some changes done to the draft before I pass it on. > > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate > [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-October/005020.html First of all, I think there should be revision ID so that people know exactly on which version of the draft they are voting on. I am assuming you mean revision 366989. I really like the idea of limiting the guidelines to strict requirements and leaving the best practices to other documents (such as Java packaging HOWTO). However I can see one issue: Current Java packaging guidelines includes the following sentence: "If upstream project does not ship pom.xml file official maven repo should be checked and if there are pom.xml files they SHOULD be installed." It seems to be removed from current draft. I would like it to be retained as it effectively allows provenpackagers to add missing POMs to packages they don't own, without the need to file bugs or wait for days/weeks. If the above sentence (or equivalent) is re-introduced it will be +1 from me. -- Mikolaj Izdebski IRC: mizdebsk -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
