Hi,
Thanks for the comments. I've tried to address them all. See my comments inline.
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 17:06 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
- 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.
I'm going to leave this one to others (Fernando, etc.).
- "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.
Are you satisfied with Nicolas' answer on this one?
- "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?
Again, is Nicolas' answer okay here?
- "Java packages in Fedora should enumerate their dependencies with
Requires." I think this might need to be a "must", not just a "should".
Fixed.
- 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.
Fixed.
- Please add an example of how to resolve class-path-in-manifest
issues.
Done (although I have a small question about it. I put it on the page if someone can take a look.).
- 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".
I think I got all of this.
- "%{_jnidir} usually expands into /usr/lib/java." This should probably
be %{_libdir}/java.
I'd like Tom to comment here but I'm not sure multilib-ifying jpackage-utils is possible right now.
- I think you've got an accidental line wrap in the example for
"Packaging JAR files that use JNI"
Is this fixed now?
- It might also be worthwhile to do an "ant" spec template and a
"maven" spec template. I'm not sure how different these two packaging types would be, but the guidelines seem to imply significant differences.
Do the other messages in this thread satisfy you that this isn't worth it?
Thanks,
Andrew