On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > FYI the versionless jar/javadocs files are now in the draft (thanks for > the suggestion, somehow none of us thought of that) Thanks for considering it. > But keep those comments coming, we'll try to keep working on the > guidelines to reflect current needs of packagers. Some other things off the top of my head, in no particular order: 1) I'd like to see crosslinking of javadocs at least a SHOULD, and I wouldn't mind a MUST at all. I'm also leaning towards making it a MUST for javadoc packages that crosslink with other javadoc packages require the ones they crosslink with. 2) Regarding wrapper scripts, I'd like to point out the %jpackage_script macro for creating them. Here's one example of it in action: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=457277 Also, most invocations of it will want to set the last argument of it to true (such as in the example above) to make jpackage-utils stuff prefer a JRE over a full Java SDK (assuming of course that they work with just a JRE installed and don't require the full SDK) to avoid problems like these: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461683 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498831 3) In my opinion, the whole alternatives setup in the JRE and SDK packages should be purged. It's a relic from times that are long gone, and at the moment causes just complexity and possibilities for breakage; it kind of even encourages breakage by giving people the option to easily switch between _incompatible_ java implementations (e.g. versions) for the system default Java, breaking programs' expectations. environment-modules would sound like a more appropriate solution for switching the Java implementation when needed. I'm not holding my breath for this to happen too soon, but hope that it sometime will. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
