I want to give our current packaging draft[1] to FPC for approval. The diff is relatively big. See original announcement from October[2] for more details.
To simplify/speed up vote please reply to this email with +1 votes, or comments if you'd like some changes done to the draft before I pass it on.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-October/005020.htm...
-- Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotnicky@redhat.com Software Engineer - Developer Experience
PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
On 01/14/2014 03:32 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
I want to give our current packaging draft[1] to FPC for approval. The diff is relatively big. See original announcement from October[2] for more details.
To simplify/speed up vote please reply to this email with +1 votes, or comments if you'd like some changes done to the draft before I pass it on.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-October/005020.htm...
First of all, I think there should be revision ID so that people know exactly on which version of the draft they are voting on. I am assuming you mean revision 366989.
I really like the idea of limiting the guidelines to strict requirements and leaving the best practices to other documents (such as Java packaging HOWTO). However I can see one issue:
Current Java packaging guidelines includes the following sentence: "If upstream project does not ship pom.xml file official maven repo should be checked and if there are pom.xml files they SHOULD be installed." It seems to be removed from current draft. I would like it to be retained as it effectively allows provenpackagers to add missing POMs to packages they don't own, without the need to file bugs or wait for days/weeks.
If the above sentence (or equivalent) is re-introduced it will be +1 from me.
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com writes:
On 01/14/2014 03:32 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
I want to give our current packaging draft[1] to FPC for approval. The diff is relatively big. See original announcement from October[2] for more details.
To simplify/speed up vote please reply to this email with +1 votes, or comments if you'd like some changes done to the draft before I pass it on.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-October/005020.htm...
First of all, I think there should be revision ID so that people know exactly on which version of the draft they are voting on. I am assuming you mean revision 366989.
I didn't want to complicate things and I expected mostly minor changes. I'd re-run the vote if the changes turned out to be major.
I really like the idea of limiting the guidelines to strict requirements and leaving the best practices to other documents (such as Java packaging HOWTO). However I can see one issue:
Current Java packaging guidelines includes the following sentence: "If upstream project does not ship pom.xml file official maven repo should be checked and if there are pom.xml files they SHOULD be installed." It seems to be removed from current draft. I would like it to be retained as it effectively allows provenpackagers to add missing POMs to packages they don't own, without the need to file bugs or wait for days/weeks.
If the above sentence (or equivalent) is re-introduced it will be +1 from me.
Done, see https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AAkurtakov%2FJavaPackaging...
-- Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotnicky@redhat.com Software Engineer - Developer Experience
PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotnicky@redhat.com writes:
I want to give our current packaging draft[1] to FPC for approval. The diff is relatively big. See original announcement from October[2] for more details.
To simplify/speed up vote please reply to this email with +1 votes, or comments if you'd like some changes done to the draft before I pass it on.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-October/005020.htm...
For the record I have filed an FPC bug[1] for this change. We still have time until their next meeting to change stuff around
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/384
-- Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotnicky@redhat.com Software Engineer - Developer Experience
PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org