Andrew Haley wrote:
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.Jerry James wrote:I've just been looking at bug 262401  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.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature