> > On 11/3/10 2:14 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > And it's unreasonable to expect those ISVs to change when Fedora has > > > not managed to package a working JBoss. If the Red Hat Java packaging > > > can not even be used with the top Red Hat Java product, what is there > > > to say? (and on this subject, I don't think Fedora Java can be > > > dissociated from Red Hat java) > > > > JBoss isn't in Fedora because JBoss seems to require lots of things that > > are older than what we ship in Fedora. I see this is a problem with > > JBoss, not Fedora. > > Sure a large part of the blame is JBoss-side. However, my point was > that's it's really hard to define good packaging guidelines, when you > have no complex application to test them on. > > And the other big Java apps have even more problems than JBoss (I > intentionnaly exclude developper tools like Eclipse or maven, the > compromises needed for a developper station are very different from > those needed for a server. A developper will accept all sorts of crap > just to have access to the latest shiny toys) I really believe that once we improve the development tools integration to the state where it's easier for developers than using zips from upstream we will see a boom of other contributions. That's why we are trying to get things uptodate, clean old craft, document things, ease packaging. This guidelines update is part of this effort. Once we can concentrate on the ease packaging task guidelines will hopefully see a lot more updates accomodating new things. Alex -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
