Le mardi 25 mars 2008 à 17:06 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit : > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 16:36 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > A whole bunch of people helped write the Java packaging guidelines draft > > currently on the wiki: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java > > > > All of the questions and comments and TODOs that were on the page have > > been taken care of. I'm sure there are going to be questions and > > complaints, but we now feel it's in a state worthy of first draft > > presentation. > > Thanks to everyone who did work on this. And now, for my comments: > > 1. The JPackageNaming exception needs to die. It was a painful > compromise originally, and now, it just needs to be removed. I will vote > -1 on any draft that contains it, unless someone comes up with a much > more convincing rationale for its continued existence. I don't see what changed since the discussion on JPackageNaming. The original arguments still stand, and no further element occurred to my knowledge to justify changing the compromise that was painfully achieved. > 2. "The JPackage Project has defined standard file system locations and > conventions for use in Java packages. Many distributions have inherited > these conventions and in the vast majority of cases, Fedora follows them > verbatim. We include relevant sections of the JPackage guidelines here > but caution that the canonical document will always reside upstream: > JPackage Guidelines " > > I'm not sure what this section is intended to provide. It seems to imply > that the JPackage Guidelines are the real guidelines, in which case, > what point do the Fedora Guidelines serve? I have no problem giving the > JPackage team credit for the origination of many of the Fedora > Guidelines, but to refer to that as "the canonical document" is wrong. > This is supposed to be the canonical document for Fedora Java > Guidelines. It's canonical in the sense it's an external document we respect, just like the FHS, the freedesktop.org specs, etc are external conventions we respect. Must each of those documents be parroted in our guidelines to indicate we follow them? > I'd prefer to see this entire section replaced with: > > The Fedora Java Guidelines are based on guidelines originally drafted by > the JPackage Project. Fedora has a voice in having the JPP guidelines changes BTW should it be necessary. You don't need to pull them in Fedora to get some control. > 3. "If the number of provided JAR files exceeds two, place them into a > sub-directory." What makes two the magic number here? Why not simply > more than 1? When the JPP guidelines were written, a magic number was needed, and 2 was a reasonable choice given the composition of the jpp repo at the time (ie there were several heavily used packages with just 2 jars, and the pain of changing them was not worth it). It does not mean anything more than that. > 8. "%{_jnidir} usually expands into /usr/lib/java." This should probably > be %{_libdir}/java. The original jpp tools scripts are not multilib-safe (I didn't have a x86_64 system available when I wrote them). When the problem was identified by people with the right hardware, a quickfix (proposed by RH IIRC) consisted in changing all the %{_libdir}s in the original guidelines with /usr/lib. Since then no one took the time to make the scripts multilib-safe. > 10. It might also be worthwhile to do an "ant" spec template and a > "maven" spec template. I'm not sure how different these two packaging > types would be, but the guidelines seem to imply significant > differences. I fear the ant case is likely to be quite un-representative. It would be like making a "make" case without the GNU project having imposed strong conventions on standard makefile targets. -- 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-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
