More Java guidelines questions

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at
Tue Apr 15 15:14:23 UTC 2008

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Jerry James wrote:
>> I've just been looking at bug 262401 [1] to see what I need to do to
>> update it to the new Java packaging guidelines.  I have 2 new
>> questions about the guidelines.
>> First, the guidelines say that I must both Requires and Build-Requires
>> jpackage-utils.  This bit of code needs nothing in jpackage-utils that
>> I can discern.  It has no external dependencies, doesn't ship with any
>> binary blobs, etc.  The guidelines say must, so I'll do it, but what
>> is the rationale?
>> Second, the GCJ guidelines say, "For Fedora versions < 8, no JDK was
>> available other than GCJ so GCJ AOT bits MUST be present."  This
>> presents a problem for the package in question, because it consists of
>> annotations only.  They are Java 1.5 annotations, so the GCJ in F7 can
>> produce the needed class files.  But there is no actual code to
>> compile, so there is nothing for the GCJ AOT bits to do.  Can an
>> exception be granted to annotation-only packages (not that there are
>> likely to be many of those)?
> Amazing -- I never even imagined that such a thing as an annotation-only
> package might exist!  The guidelines are intended to allow reasonable
> people to interpret them sensibly.  In this case, AOT-compiling wouldn't
> hurt but wouldn't be of much benefit, so I don't think it matters.
Andrew, if you could propose some wording changes to the Guidelines for 
this it would be most appreciated.  Knowing what an annotation is and 
that this is a sensible tactic will help reviewers who are unfamiliar 
with java to review packages of interest to all.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list