[Fedora-packaging] Java packaging guidelines draft

Jesse Keating jkeating at redhat.com
Wed Mar 26 01:09:14 UTC 2008

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.

Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20080325/0d2dfb2a/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list