Le Dim 10 mai 2009 00:41, Fernando Nasser a écrit :
Also, I find it a bit inconsistent that java packages don't have
to have
a java- prefix as python, perl, php and so on packages have to.
I do to but I think this is the standard for enough packages that we shouldn't look at fixing it unless it's causing breakage.
Agreed. Most (all?) of this stuff came from JPackage and there's little point in breaking compatibility/naming.
Also, perl and python components are released from a centralised source, while java components aren't. The perl- prefix works because it's effectively a cpan- prefix
Other languages like C which do not have a centralized source also do not use a common prefix. So java is consistent
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Dim 10 mai 2009 00:41, Fernando Nasser a écrit :
Also, I find it a bit inconsistent that java packages don't have
to have
a java- prefix as python, perl, php and so on packages have to.
I do to but I think this is the standard for enough packages that we shouldn't look at fixing it unless it's causing breakage.
Agreed. Most (all?) of this stuff came from JPackage and there's little point in breaking compatibility/naming.
Also, perl and python components are released from a centralised source, while java components aren't. The perl- prefix works because it's effectively a cpan- prefix
perl does but python does not.
(pypi, in case that's what you're looking at, is a relatively recent invention as a distribution point and most of the projects there are only lightly tied to that.)
But I do think the weight of java's history should count a lot for not inflicting a mass renaming on users and packagers.
-Toshio
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Nicolas Mailhot -
Toshio Kuratomi