Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591298 --- Comment #13 from Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-14 05:28:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #9) > > >If no package in Fedora needs the legacy pom, is this still necessary? If > > > "org.apache.commons" if the right way, I'd rather just do that. > > > > Is it possible to find out in some easy way? For my future reference :-) You > > are right though, it's good to avoid polluting the spec file if it's possible. > > When I did this in my specs I added a big comment stating why it's there...But > > this really is not a show-stopper. Since we are doing this in rawhide, we will > > have time to find out if something doesn't work. > > > > Unfortunately I don't have an easy way to confirm this, but until very > recently, this package provided no pom at all. I only added when I took over > ownership of commons-codec, so I'd be surprised if there has been anything > added to Fedora in the last few months that depends on it. > The poms (for commons-* and jakarta-commons-*) are provided within maven2-common-poms, which is used in the local repo as a backup pom/depmap source (in /usr/share/maven/default_poms). That was done to workaround packages not providing poms along jars, but if you provide a pom file (which goes to /usr/share/maven/poms), that one will be chosen first during build. In this case about renaming, i'm not sure if letting the old named poms stay in maven2-common-poms does any hurt. Btw, i think most if not all projects will depend on commons-* and not apache|jakarta-commons-* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review