(changing lists)
fre 2010-05-07 klockan 13:41 -0400 skrev Andrew Overholt:
Hi,
Sometimes *-javadoc sub-packages explicitly requires main package, and sometimes - not. I'm not a java-expert, so I don't know which is correct.
I don't think it really matters. In some cases, sure, it would be nice to ensure that the package is around if someone is looking at the API documentation. Other times someone may only want to peruse the APIs without installing the implementation.
Agreed. Those deps are now removed from the examples in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Abo/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate which I previously submitted as a proposed guideline update. (I hope I submitted it the right way...)
Somehow I managed to not notice the java-devel list until recently so I think this is the first time I've mentioned the draft here. Please read and comment on it! The number of changes are growing...
I should move it out of the User:Abo namespace so it doesn't look like a personal page.
/Alexander
2010/5/7 Alexander Boström abo@root.snowtree.se:
fre 2010-05-07 klockan 13:41 -0400 skrev Andrew Overholt:
Sometimes *-javadoc sub-packages explicitly requires main package, and sometimes - not. I'm not a java-expert, so I don't know which is correct.
I don't think it really matters. In some cases, sure, it would be nice to ensure that the package is around if someone is looking at the API documentation. Other times someone may only want to peruse the APIs without installing the implementation.
Agreed. Those deps are now removed from the examples in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Abo/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate which I previously submitted as a proposed guideline update. (I hope I submitted it the right way...)
I think there are use cases for which you want to install javadocs without installing the bytecode; besides that, the Requires: tag is to make explicit some runtime dependency, not a simple relation like this one.
Someone would disagree with me; however i think any decision is taken on that topic would be turned in a MUST (depend or not depend) for the sake of coherency.
Somehow I managed to not notice the java-devel list until recently so I think this is the first time I've mentioned the draft here. Please read and comment on it! The number of changes are growing...
Some notes:
1- BuildRequires and Requires
At a minimum, Java packages MUST:
BuildRequires: java-devel [>= specific_version] BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
Requires: java >= specific_version Requires: jpackage-utils
This code snippet is telling me that specifying ">= specific_version" in BuildRequires: java-devel is optional, while it is mandatory in Requires: java
I have no objections to that, but the ant and maven templates below must be updated consistently with that.
2- JavaDoc installation
"The name of the subdirectory SHOULD be either %{name} or %{name}-%{version} with a symlink %{name} pointing to it."
I would turn that in a "MUST be either " one or the other: different directory naming should be a rare exception and SHOULD doesnt seem strong enough.
3- maven template
You could drop the dependency on the main package for the manual too. Anyway, the line should be: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} not Requires: %{name}-%{version}-%{release}
I also would write a more general %add_to_maven_depmap macro call, from: %add_to_maven_depmap org.apache.maven %{name} %{version} JPP %{name} to: %add_to_maven_depmap [groupId] [artifactId] %{version} JPP[/optional_subDir] [jarName]
Finally, in the %files section: %{_datadir}/maven2/poms/* or %{mavenpomdir}/*
Hope that helps guido
lör 2010-05-08 klockan 00:56 +0200 skrev Guido Grazioli:
Someone would disagree with me; however i think any decision is taken on that topic would be turned in a MUST (depend or not depend) for the sake of coherency.
I can only think of rather far-fetched situations where such a dependency would be needed, so I guess I agree...
This code snippet is telling me that specifying ">= specific_version" in BuildRequires: java-devel is optional, while it is mandatory in Requires: java
I have no objections to that, but the ant and maven templates below must be updated consistently with that.
Good call, fixed.
2- JavaDoc installation
"The name of the subdirectory SHOULD be either %{name} or %{name}-%{version} with a symlink %{name} pointing to it."
I would turn that in a "MUST be either " one or the other: different directory naming should be a rare exception and SHOULD doesnt seem strong enough.
Hmm, I was too lazy to look for current counterexamples which might provide guidance. Anyone have any? I changed it anyway.
You could drop the dependency on the main package for the manual too.
Fixed.
I also would write a more general %add_to_maven_depmap macro call, from: %add_to_maven_depmap org.apache.maven %{name} %{version} JPP %{name} to: %add_to_maven_depmap [groupId] [artifactId] %{version} JPP[/optional_subDir] [jarName]
Ok, added with a comment.
Finally, in the %files section: %{_datadir}/maven2/poms/* or %{mavenpomdir}/*
Ok.
Hope that helps
Awesome!
/Alexander
java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org