On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 12:55 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "NM" == Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > NM> What's different is the package inter-dependencies. > > So they get to violate our in-place packaging and naming conventions? > Just because they have lots of dependencies? > > Yes, I'm being deliberately difficult. But I think the point is > valid; jpackage is special because it's special, and we have to decide > whether we're going to eat it. And if we do eat it, what happens when > the next pile of "special" packages comes along? JPackage is special because of the way we let them do most of the work building the packages and we are using their packaging standards which make java portable (between distros) and pluggable (between java stacks). As long as we use their framework for making java packages we need to figure out how to make things work with that framework. The question is how does naming impact that framework? Are those areas important to us? Are there already other things impacting those areas so naming won't affect things one way or the other? -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
