Le lundi 17 mars 2008 à 22:12 -0400, Jesse Keating a écrit : > On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 02:08 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > What guideline is this package failing? > > http://konrad.sobertillnoon.com/fedora/joni.spec > > Just from looking at it, why do you need both the version and the > versionless .jar files? This is documented in the jpackage-utils package we've been shipping for years, and this documentation is already referenced in the "incomplete" java guidelines. > What if you wanted multiple versions of this > jar installed, how would you handle the symlink? You don't install multiple versions of the same package and if you do want to allow it there are evil stuff like alternatives for this use case just like for other non java packages. > Why does this not build with GCJ? Why should building with gcj be mandatory? A lot of nice questions, but nothing which is forbidden by current guidelines and would necessitate another guideline to state exceptions. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
