[Fedora-packaging] Java packaging guidelines draft

[Andrew Overholt]

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.  I've tried to address them all.  See my
comments inline.

On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 17:06 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> 1. The JPackageNaming exception needs to die. It was a painful
> compromise originally, and now, it just needs to be removed. I will vote
> -1 on any draft that contains it, unless someone comes up with a much
> more convincing rationale for its continued existence.

I'm going to leave this one to others (Fernando, etc.).

> 2. "The JPackage Project has defined standard file system locations and
> conventions for use in Java packages. Many distributions have inherited
> these conventions and in the vast majority of cases, Fedora follows them
> verbatim. We include relevant sections of the JPackage guidelines here
> but caution that the canonical document will always reside upstream:
> JPackage Guidelines "
> 
> I'm not sure what this section is intended to provide. It seems to imply
> that the JPackage Guidelines are the real guidelines, in which case,
> what point do the Fedora Guidelines serve? I have no problem giving the
> JPackage team credit for the origination of many of the Fedora
> Guidelines, but to refer to that as "the canonical document" is wrong.
> This is supposed to be the canonical document for Fedora Java
> Guidelines.

Are you satisfied with Nicolas' answer on this one?

> 3. "If the number of provided JAR files exceeds two, place them into a
> sub-directory." What makes two the magic number here? Why not simply
> more than 1?

Again, is Nicolas' answer okay here?

> 4. "Java packages in Fedora should enumerate their dependencies with
> Requires." I think this might need to be a "must", not just a "should".

Fixed.

> 5. I would like to see a section reminding people that all Java packages
> MUST be built from source code, and that pre-built binary files (JARs or
> otherwise) are not acceptable. The "Pre-built JAR files / Other bundled
> software" is probably intended to do this, but it uses a lot of
> "shoulds", and never explicitly states that this must not happen.

Fixed.

> 6. Please add an example of how to resolve class-path-in-manifest
> issues.

Done (although I have a small question about it.  I put it on the page
if someone can take a look.).

> 7. Go through the entire document and make sure that you're using "must"
> and "should" appropriately. "Should" means that you are not required to
> do it, its just a good idea. "Must" means that you are required to do
> it, and that it will fail a package on review. For example, the "Javadoc
> scriptlets" seems like it is a "must" not a "should".

I think I got all of this.

> 8. "%{_jnidir} usually expands into /usr/lib/java." This should probably
> be %{_libdir}/java.

I'd like Tom to comment here but I'm not sure multilib-ifying
jpackage-utils is possible right now.

> 9. I think you've got an accidental line wrap in the example for
> "Packaging JAR files that use JNI"

Is this fixed now?

> 10. It might also be worthwhile to do an "ant" spec template and a
> "maven" spec template. I'm not sure how different these two packaging
> types would be, but the guidelines seem to imply significant
> differences.

Do the other messages in this thread satisfy you that this isn't worth
it?

Thanks,

Andrew