Linux Archive

Linux Archive (
-   Fedora Development Java (
-   -   Fedora vs JPackage naming (

Andy Grimm 02-16-2012 06:21 PM

Fedora vs JPackage naming
After running into a few complicated naming situations, I decided it
would be worthwhile to pose this question to the list. For context,
the current Fedora package naming guidelines say this:

"When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or
project name from which this software came. In some cases, this naming
choice may be more complicated. If this package has been packaged by
other distributions/packagers in the past, then you should try to
match their name for consistency. In any case, try to use your best
judgement, and other developers will help in the final decision."

In the java world, a few issues come into play.

1) the history of jpackage naming, where a packages are often named
according to the section of the apache project from which they came.

2) the upstream tarball naming and jar file names, which typically
lack the "ws-commons" prefix.

3) the existing Fedora packages, where we have apache-commons-* ,
xml-commons-*, one ws-commons-* package, and one ws-* package.

4) apache's own naming in github is different from their svn naming
(partly due to a lack of hierarchy):


5) If we go with short names (to match the jar files), we have a
greater risk of collision with other project names, e.g.,

So I look at all of these conflicting possibilities, and I think we
need to come to some consensus about what to do here. I considered
posting this to the packaging list, but I think it's a fairly
java-centric problem at this point. Feel free to report on that list
if you believe it's appropriate, though.

(And if this topic has already been beaten to death, I apologize. I
couldn't find a documented resolution, though.)


java-devel mailing list

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:37 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.