[Fedora-packaging] Java packaging guidelines draft
Tom "spot" Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Thu Mar 27 20:26:17 UTC 2008
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 15:54 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> [2008-03-27 15:25]:
> > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 15:13 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > > An important reason we need the jpp in there currently is to maintain
> > > compatibility with JPackage.
> > We have never supported repository mixing. If anything, this serves as a
> > good reason that JPackage should drop their disttag.
> How many other repositories are there with the entire stack duplicated?
> (not being sarcastic.. I really don't know of any). I know that there
> were conflicts with Livna and what not a while ago, but those were for a
> handful of packages only.
> As for JPackage dropping their release tag policy -- not to be the devil's
> advocate, but they were here before Fedora...
> I have heard of numerous requests for technical arguments as to why the
> string is needed. But where the technical arguments as to why it should
> be removed? From what I have seen so far, reasons for that are pretty
> much "Because it looks better, because it a policy, etc."
It causes rpm ordering to be painful. The Version and Release should be
wholly numeric, whenever they aren't, rpm's ordering gets rather
non-intuitive. We've defined special, strictly controlled cases when it
is ok to have non-numeric characters in the version or release
(especially release), but only when there is a real need.
So, again, where is the real need for tacking jpp on the end of Release?
More information about the Fedora-packaging