[Fedora-packaging] Java (jpackage) naming scheme rehash -- part 1 Goals

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Fri Jan 12 20:27:51 UTC 2007

On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:03 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 12 January 2007 11:48, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > Yes, we have the changelog entries added for the respin everything
> > cases, some old entries regarding changes that were made for GCJ
> > compilation when it was not as perfect as it is today, some emergency
> > local fixes doen during release times that were incorporated upstream a
> > few days later.  If this is deemed not important we can stopp merging them.
> >
> > We will still add our '.N' release number to the release tag and add a
> > changelog entry saying that we have imported and are rebuilding it with
> > AOT.
> >
> > BTW, so far we had to remove the Vendor and Distribution tags from the
> > upstream spec file too, but that has been removed upstream to make it
> > easier for the distros to import the packages.
> I think adopting a work method that doesn't stomp local changes is very 
> important, including adding an entry about importing from upstream for the 
> build.
> I still don't like "jpp" being there, however I suppose I can live with it, 
> provided others on the packaging committee can too, and we create a special 
> case for it (ICK).

I really don't like it. To be blunt, the arguments for keeping it seem
to be "Because we waaaaaaaant it."

It really doesn't serve a useful purpose. Release should be for tagging
the build number of a package, with the exception of the dist tag, which
identifies the distribution that a package is built for. "jpp" is
irrelevant in both contexts, as these are Fedora packages, in a Fedora


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list