[Fedora-packaging] Java packaging guidelines draft

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Tue Mar 25 21:13:34 UTC 2008

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 16:36 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
>> Hi,
>> A whole bunch of people helped write the Java packaging guidelines draft
>> currently on the wiki:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java
>> All of the questions and comments and TODOs that were on the page have
>> been taken care of.  I'm sure there are going to be questions and
>> complaints, but we now feel it's in a state worthy of first draft
>> presentation.
> Thanks to everyone who did work on this. And now, for my comments:

Yes, many thanks to all involved!

> 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.

? Can someone explain to me what is meant with JPackageNaming?

> 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.
> I'd prefer to see this entire section replaced with:
> The Fedora Java Guidelines are based on guidelines originally drafted by
> the JPackage Project.


> 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?


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

+1, any needed jars (or rather there containing packages) which are not part of
the jre should be required.

> 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.


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


> 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".


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

Yes it should are rather must :) be %{_libdir}/java



More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list