Java packages, guidelines, ...

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le mercredi 19 mars 2008 à 23:35 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
> On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le lundi 17 mars 2008 à 22:12 -0400, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> > > On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 02:08 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > > What guideline is this package failing?
> > > > http://konrad.sobertillnoon.com/fedora/joni.spec
> > >
> > > Just from looking at it, why do you need both the version and the
> > > versionless .jar files?
> >
> > This is documented in the jpackage-utils package we've been shipping for
> > years, and this documentation is already referenced in the "incomplete"
> > java guidelines.
> 
> Could you cite the part of the documentation that provides rationale for this?

The rationale is sort of implicit in the documentation that's true.

> I have never grokked it, the docs just say "you shall do this" but don't give 
> a reason at least in the form I would understand.

The reason is just that jpackage-utils is just a pile of dumb scripts
doing sed-s on find-s in a few directories, and build-classpath jaf
works because there is a jaf.jar symlink on the filesystem.

>   IMNSHO the versioning 
> should be dropped and only the unversioned jars installed.

Feel free to add smarts to the scripts. Though at this point of time
figuring out how to integrate JSR 277 or OSGi with rpm would be a better
investment IMHO (that'd be a terrific SoC if someone on the rpm/yum or
jboss/java side was ready to mentor it BTW)

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080319/7e11c2bf/attachment.sig>