[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: More Java guidelines questions

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]