Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> Jerry James wrote: >>> I've just been looking at bug 262401 [1] to see what I need to do to >>> update it to the new Java packaging guidelines. I have 2 new >>> questions about the guidelines. >>> >>> First, the guidelines say that I must both Requires and Build-Requires >>> jpackage-utils. This bit of code needs nothing in jpackage-utils that >>> I can discern. It has no external dependencies, doesn't ship with any >>> binary blobs, etc. The guidelines say must, so I'll do it, but what >>> is the rationale? >>> >>> Second, the GCJ guidelines say, "For Fedora versions < 8, no JDK was >>> available other than GCJ so GCJ AOT bits MUST be present." This >>> presents a problem for the package in question, because it consists of >>> annotations only. They are Java 1.5 annotations, so the GCJ in F7 can >>> produce the needed class files. But there is no actual code to >>> compile, so there is nothing for the GCJ AOT bits to do. Can an >>> exception be granted to annotation-only packages (not that there are >>> likely to be many of those)? >> >> Amazing -- I never even imagined that such a thing as an annotation-only >> package might exist! The guidelines are intended to allow reasonable >> people to interpret them sensibly. In this case, AOT-compiling wouldn't >> hurt but wouldn't be of much benefit, so I don't think it matters. >> > Andrew, if you could propose some wording changes to the Guidelines for > this it would be most appreciated. OK. "In some rare cases Java packages might not contain any executable code whatsoever, so AOT-compiling for gcj would not be required. An example of such a package would be one that contained only annotations." Andrew. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
