On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 23:03 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 25 mars 2008 à 17:06 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> > I'm not sure what this section is intended to provide. It seems to imply
> > that the JPackage Guidelines are the real 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?
+1
> > 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.
Tom Fitzsimmons has said more than once this is on his list of things to
do but he has yet to have time to accomplish it.
> > 10. It might also be worthwhile to do an "ant" spec template and a
> > "maven" spec template.
> [...]
>
> 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.
Agreed. A maven template is perHAPs more useful, but I'll let maven
people take that one.
Andrew
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
