FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-02-2010, 01:27 PM
"Jason L Tibbitts III"
 
Default Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

>>>>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com> writes:

SO> Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging
SO> guidelines. We would welcome wider discussion/comments at this
SO> point. From our point of view guidelines seem ready for approval by
SO> FPC.

Could we get a diff of these guidelines against the guideline changes
that FPC recently approved?

- J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-02-2010, 01:30 PM
"Jason L Tibbitts III"
 
Default Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

>>>>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com> writes:

SO> Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging
SO> guidelines.

It's terribly rude to crosspost to a list which simply rejects messages
from non-subscribers.

- J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-02-2010, 01:45 PM
Stanislav Ochotnicky
 
Default Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

On 11/02/2010 03:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com> writes:
>
> SO> Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging
> SO> guidelines. We would welcome wider discussion/comments at this
> SO> point. From our point of view guidelines seem ready for approval by
> SO> FPC.
>
> Could we get a diff of these guidelines against the guideline changes
> that FPC recently approved?

Recently? I haven't heard of Java-specific guideline changes for past
few months. Care to enlighten me? I guess you just meant changes from
current Java guidelines and that diff I linked in my original email:

>> Changes from current guidelines here:
>> http://bit.ly/dy3YDe

(the document was copied from Guidelines:Java so diff from first version
is diff against current guidelines)

--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com>
Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

PGP: 71A1677C
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-02-2010, 01:48 PM
Stanislav Ochotnicky
 
Default Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

On 11/02/2010 03:30 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com> writes:
>
> SO> Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging
> SO> guidelines.
>
> It's terribly rude to crosspost to a list which simply rejects messages
> from non-subscribers.

I'll make sure not to repeat the same mistake again.

--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com>
Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

PGP: 71A1677C
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-02-2010, 02:10 PM
"Jason L Tibbitts III"
 
Default Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

>>>>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com> writes:

SO> Recently? I haven't heard of Java-specific guideline changes for
SO> past few months. Care to enlighten me?

https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/13

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-October/000699.html

- J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-02-2010, 02:56 PM
Stanislav Ochotnicky
 
Default Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

On 11/02/2010 04:10 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com> writes:
>
> SO> Recently? I haven't heard of Java-specific guideline changes for
> SO> past few months. Care to enlighten me?
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/13
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-October/000699.html
>
> - J<

Wow. Whole Java SIG missed this. I'll make sure our Draft incorporates
these recent changes.

I guess it's partially my fault. Original email from Abo about packaging
draft was posted in January (I wasn't here at the time) and I just
skimmed that FPC email and missed Java guidelines changes (probably
because I wasn't expecting them at all).

FYI the [1] web correctly states that current Java guidelines are being
worked on by akurtakov (I believe I changed this some time ago but the
history for that page seems screwed up). I'll get in touch with Abo
directly, maybe he missed the SIG mails (should have done it before).


[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo#Things_to_be_considered_for_Packagi ng_Guidelines


--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com>
Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

PGP: 71A1677C
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-02-2010, 03:11 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

On Tuesday 02 November 2010, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging guidelines. We
> would welcome wider discussion/comments at this point. From our point of
> view guidelines seem ready for approval by FPC.
>
> You can see current version of draft here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate
>
> Changes from current guidelines here:
> http://bit.ly/dy3YDe
>
> Comments are most welcome!

These aren't necessarily comments to the changes, but some long standing
issues with Fedora java packaging that I'd like to see fixed (ditto JPackage
where these are inherited I believe - I was a member of that project for a
long time and already back then had this opinion).

I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install to
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for bookmarking and javadoc
crosslinking.

Same thing for jars, I'd just install the jar(s) unversioned (i.e. not put
%{version} everywhere - major version can go there if several versions are
needed like let's say foo.jar and foo2.jar).

I think the versioned jars and javadoc dirs are quite pointless. If the
intent is to make it possible to co-install several versions, the unversioned
symlinks either need to be owned by each package (thus preventing co-
installation due to file conflicts) or be left out altogether (which makes it
a PITA to use the jars and javadoc dirs) or be left out from some packages
(which eliminates the benefit of the unversioned symlink or necessitates file
dependencies).
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-03-2010, 07:53 AM
Stanislav Ochotnicky
 
Default Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

On 11/02/2010 03:15 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging guidelines. We
> would welcome wider discussion/comments at this point. From our point of
> view guidelines seem ready for approval by FPC.
>
> You can see current version of draft here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate
>
> Changes from current guidelines here:
> http://bit.ly/dy3YDe
>
> Comments are most welcome!

Ticket with FPC has been filed. But keep those comments coming, we'll
try to keep working on the guidelines to reflect current needs of
packagers. (FYI the versionless jar files are now in effect)

https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/24


--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com>
Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

PGP: 71A1677C
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
 
Old 11-03-2010, 07:56 AM
Stanislav Ochotnicky
 
Default Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

On 11/02/2010 05:11 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 November 2010, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
>> Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging guidelines. We
>> would welcome wider discussion/comments at this point. From our point of
>> view guidelines seem ready for approval by FPC.
>>
>> You can see current version of draft here:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate
>>
>> Changes from current guidelines here:
>> http://bit.ly/dy3YDe
>>
>> Comments are most welcome!
>
> These aren't necessarily comments to the changes, but some long standing
> issues with Fedora java packaging that I'd like to see fixed (ditto JPackage
> where these are inherited I believe - I was a member of that project for a
> long time and already back then had this opinion).
>
> I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install to
> %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for bookmarking and javadoc
> crosslinking.
>
> Same thing for jars, I'd just install the jar(s) unversioned (i.e. not put
> %{version} everywhere - major version can go there if several versions are
> needed like let's say foo.jar and foo2.jar).
>
> I think the versioned jars and javadoc dirs are quite pointless. If the
> intent is to make it possible to co-install several versions, the unversioned
> symlinks either need to be owned by each package (thus preventing co-
> installation due to file conflicts) or be left out altogether (which makes it
> a PITA to use the jars and javadoc dirs) or be left out from some packages
> (which eliminates the benefit of the unversioned symlink or necessitates file
> dependencies).

Ticket with FPC has been filed.
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/24

FYI the versionless jar/javadocs files are now in the draft (thanks for
the suggestion, somehow none of us thought of that)

But keep those comments coming, we'll try to keep working on the
guidelines to reflect current needs of packagers.


--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@redhat.com>
Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

PGP: 71A1677C
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:54 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org