* Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-03-26 10:21]:
> 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.
Done. Let me know if it's not good enough.
> > > 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.
Java stuff is noarch, normally. Existing packages that are built with
gcj have lots of workarounds to deal with multilib issues
(brp-repack-jars; the unpacking and repacking of jars to set the
creation dates to 1980-01-01 at the end of eclipse.spec, etc.). It will
be nice to fix these issues and having OpenJDK JIT support on more
arches will help.
fitzsim, any more thoughts here?
> > > 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.
Deepak, can you do a maven one? I really think doing an ant one is a
waste of time (and the main template uses ant anyway).
Andrew
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
