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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Java Naming Page



On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 08:33 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> toshio tiki-lounge com (Toshio Kuratomi) writes:
> 
> >   http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaPackageNaming
> >
> > Feel free to review it and see if I've missed anything, misstated the
> > effects of naming according to a certain proposal, etc.
> 
> | 1. Allow for upgrading between the Fedora and JPackage repositories so
> |    that upgrade paths similar to the following works:
> 
> This will be needed for the first installation of a Java package from FE
> only. Then, I see the following two situations:
> 
> 1. user enabled on FE repository
>    --> jpackage versioning is uninteresting
> 
> 2. user enabled both FE and JPackage repositories
>    --> When FE packager is a little bit behind, jpackage packages will
>        override FE packags again. This would render JPackages in FE
>        useless.
> 
> General versioniong rules for mixing repositories are impossible so I
> suggest to ignore the jpackage Release: resp. just make sure that first
> FE package wins against the original JPackage package.
> 
The way I understand it, fnasser says this goal _is_ to make Fedora and
jpackage override each other depending on who has the newer jpackage
base.  The argument is that when the jpackage packager is more on top of
making fixes than the Fedora maintainer, the end user gets those fixes
quicker.  Once the Fedora maintainer rebases to the new jpackage, the
Fedora package takes precedence again.

The counter argument is that the Fedora Package has patches local to
Fedora (sometimes bugfixes that jpackage wants to fix a different way at
a later time, many times Ahead of time compiling to native libraries)
and upgrading to the jpackage will lose these changes.

> 
> |  2. Allow packagers to tell what JPackage release the java package was
> |     based against.
> 
> I do not think that this must be expressed with Release:; you could
> document this somewhere else (%description) or write
> 
> | Provides: jpackage(%name) = %jpackage_version-%jpackage_release

I've added this to the wiki page under both discussion of the goals and
as part of the proposal for keeping things the way they are.

If I've misrepresented anything there, feel free to correct it.

http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaPackageNaming

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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