[Fedora-packaging] Re: Java packaging guidelines draft

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:19:24PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 22:13 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > ? Can someone explain to me what is meant with JPackageNaming?
> 
> All of the packages which originated from the JPackage repository had a
> "repotag" of jpp on them. When they were merged into Fedora Core
> (pre-Core/Extras merge), they kept their jpp repotag. When the merger
> happened, we tried to get rid of the repotag, because it was a violation
> of the NamingGuidelines, but we got a huge amount of pushback on this.
> 
> Finally, simply to get past the issue, we drafted a temporary
> compromise, letting the repotag remain until it was no longer useful.
> The intent was to provide some time for the Java packagers to work out
> alternate methods to perform the tasks that they were reliant upon the
> repotag for... but no such work ever took place.
> 
> In fact, upon retrospection, I'm not entirely sure what value the
> repotag holds, which is why it either needs to be thoroughly
> rationalized, or gotten rid of entirely.

The idea was to treat jpackage as an upstream vendor such that Fedora
imports jpackage rpms, does some modifications on them, but still the
next jpackage release would win over the "local" Fedora modifications.

The same argument that undoes jpackage's guidelines as canonical over
Fedora's applied here would mean that this setup is no longer wanted
anymore.

W/o being involved in jpackage I kinda liked their cross-distribution
type of work. Perhaps the Fedora java guidelines could flow back into
jpackage's. After all there are many jpackage folks around here.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20080325/c55fd7c1/attachment.sig>