[Fedora-packaging] Java packaging guidelines draft

Andrew Overholt overholt at redhat.com
Wed Mar 26 01:44:43 UTC 2008

* Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> [2008-03-25 21:10]:
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 23:03 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > I don't see what changed since the discussion on JPackageNaming. The
> > original arguments still stand, and no further element occurred to my
> > knowledge to justify changing the compromise that was painfully
> > achieved.
> These reasons need to be actually enumerated somewhere, so that they can
> be re-examined with today's tools, and if today's tools aren't up to the
> task we can have a target to shoot for with tomorrow's tools.  Thus far
> I have only seen hand wavy reasons as to why it's "needed" and no clear
> statements as to what problems are being solved with their existence.

I emailed people's "action items" from our little meeting and that was
on Fernano's plate.  At the time he told me he was going to try to get
to it yesterday so I'll ping him to find out the status.

-------------- 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/20080325/7f96ebd1/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list