On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:14 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> Are you satisfied with Nicolas' answer on this one?
I'd still prefer a rewording there, to clearly state that if/when the
two documents are in conflict, the Fedora Java Guidelines win.
> > 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?
>
> Again, is Nicolas' answer okay here?
Sure.
> > 8. "%{_jnidir} usually expands into /usr/lib/java." This should probably
> > be %{_libdir}/java.
>
> I'd like Tom to comment here but I'm not sure multilib-ifying
> jpackage-utils is possible right now.
Is nothing in the Java space multilib? If not, maybe we can let this
slide as is, but I suspect lots of Java stuff is multilib, and we need
to get this fixed.
> > 9. I think you've got an accidental line wrap in the example for
> > "Packaging JAR files that use JNI"
>
> Is this fixed now?
Looks good.
> > 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.
>
> Do the other messages in this thread satisfy you that this isn't worth
> it?
To be honest, no. If we're going to have maven based packages, I would
feel much better about having an example template.
~spot
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
