I hope I'm CC'ing this sufficiently; I do not know if any
representatives form the Java group are members of fedora-packaging.

I was reviewing my first maven-using package and ran into an issue
with the Java packaging guidelines. Namely that they specify that
every maven-using package should own /etc/maven/fragments and
/usr/share/maven2/poms, which contradicts our usual policy on
directory ownership by multiple packages.

I don't really understand why the packages would need to own those
directories; jpackage-utils already serves as a kind of filesystem
package for java, it already owns /etc/maven and several
java-related directories in /usr/share, and all of the packages which
would own files in the two directories at issue already depend on it.
So I think jpackage-utils should just own /etc/maven/fragments and
/usr/share/maven2/poms and we can tweak the guidelines to not specify
that the individual packages own these directory.

Another possibility would be to shift this off to a java-filesystem
package analogous to our other *-filesystem packages which could own
these and various other java directories.

This would fix ownership issues for 22 packages currently.

Another separate bug related issue is the fact that the contents of
/etc/maven/fragments do not seem to be configuration files, and so
probably should not live under /etc. I do not have sufficient Java
knowledge to propose a solution, however.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Sorry for the resend; this should have the correct address for the
java list.

I hope I'm CC'ing this sufficiently; I do not know if any
representatives form the Java group are members of fedora-packaging.

I was reviewing my first maven-using package and ran into an issue
with the Java packaging guidelines. Namely that they specify that
every maven-using package should own /etc/maven/fragments and
/usr/share/maven2/poms, which contradicts our usual policy on
directory ownership by multiple packages.

I don't really understand why the packages would need to own those
directories; jpackage-utils already serves as a kind of filesystem
package for java, it already owns /etc/maven and several
java-related directories in /usr/share, and all of the packages which
would own files in the two directories at issue already depend on it.
So I think jpackage-utils should just own /etc/maven/fragments and
/usr/share/maven2/poms and we can tweak the guidelines to not specify
that the individual packages own these directory.

Another possibility would be to shift this off to a java-filesystem
package analogous to our other *-filesystem packages which could own
these and various other java directories.

This would fix ownership issues for 22 packages currently.

Another separate bug related issue is the fact that the contents of
/etc/maven/fragments do not seem to be configuration files, and so
probably should not live under /etc. I do not have sufficient Java
knowledge to propose a solution, however.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

* Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu> [2008-06-28 18:23]:
> Sorry for the resend; this should have the correct address for the
> java list.
>
> I hope I'm CC'ing this sufficiently; I do not know if any
> representatives form the Java group are members of fedora-packaging.
>
> I was reviewing my first maven-using package and ran into an issue
> with the Java packaging guidelines. Namely that they specify that
> every maven-using package should own /etc/maven/fragments and
> /usr/share/maven2/poms, which contradicts our usual policy on
> directory ownership by multiple packages.
>
> I don't really understand why the packages would need to own those
> directories; jpackage-utils already serves as a kind of filesystem
> package for java, it already owns /etc/maven and several
> java-related directories in /usr/share, and all of the packages which
> would own files in the two directories at issue already depend on it.
> So I think jpackage-utils should just own /etc/maven/fragments and
> /usr/share/maven2/poms and we can tweak the guidelines to not specify
> that the individual packages own these directory.
>
> Another possibility would be to shift this off to a java-filesystem
> package analogous to our other *-filesystem packages which could own
> these and various other java directories.
>

I think moving them to jpackage-utils would be sufficient, as it owns a
multitude of other java related directories right now. I have put this
down on my TODO list and will get to it on Monday (off today and
tomorrow).

> This would fix ownership issues for 22 packages currently.
>
> Another separate bug related issue is the fact that the contents of
> /etc/maven/fragments do not seem to be configuration files, and so
> probably should not live under /etc. I do not have sufficient Java
> knowledge to propose a solution, however.
>

Correct, technically they are not configuration related files. I'd be happy to
move them, but I am not sure what the best place for them is either :/ ..
suggestions are welcome. The files serve as configuration in the sense
that they provide maven with a "mapping" between where maven expects
jars to be, and where they actually are on the system.

Cheers,
Deepak

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

* Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu> [2008-06-28 18:23]:
> Sorry for the resend; this should have the correct address for the
> java list.
>
> I hope I'm CC'ing this sufficiently; I do not know if any
> representatives form the Java group are members of fedora-packaging.
>
> I was reviewing my first maven-using package and ran into an issue
> with the Java packaging guidelines. Namely that they specify that
> every maven-using package should own /etc/maven/fragments and
> /usr/share/maven2/poms, which contradicts our usual policy on
> directory ownership by multiple packages.
>
> I don't really understand why the packages would need to own those
> directories; jpackage-utils already serves as a kind of filesystem
> package for java, it already owns /etc/maven and several
> java-related directories in /usr/share, and all of the packages which
> would own files in the two directories at issue already depend on it.
> So I think jpackage-utils should just own /etc/maven/fragments and
> /usr/share/maven2/poms and we can tweak the guidelines to not specify
> that the individual packages own these directory.
>
> Another possibility would be to shift this off to a java-filesystem
> package analogous to our other *-filesystem packages which could own
> these and various other java directories.
>

I think moving them to jpackage-utils would be sufficient, as it owns a
multitude of other java related directories right now. I have put this
down on my TODO list and will get to it on Monday (off today and
tomorrow).

> This would fix ownership issues for 22 packages currently.
>
> Another separate bug related issue is the fact that the contents of
> /etc/maven/fragments do not seem to be configuration files, and so
> probably should not live under /etc. I do not have sufficient Java
> knowledge to propose a solution, however.
>

Correct, technically they are not configuration related files. I'd be happy to
move them, but I am not sure what the best place for them is either :/ ..
suggestions are welcome. The files serve as configuration in the sense
that they provide maven with a "mapping" between where maven expects
jars to be, and where they actually are on the system.

Cheers,
Deepak

--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list

* David Walluck <david@zarb.org> [2008-06-30 13:04]:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Deepak Bhole wrote:
> | I think moving them to jpackage-utils would be sufficient, as it owns a
> | multitude of other java related directories right now. I have put this
>
> I agree. This is consistent since %{_sysconfdir}/maven is already owned
> by jpackage-utils.
>
> | Correct, technically they are not configuration related files. I'd be
> happy to
>
> Config files are specified to always have %config(noreplace) (in my
> rpmlint anyway). So, unless they are user-editable files that can be
> kept between upgrades, then they should be moved. I think that since
> these files aren't meant to be editable and in fact must be kept in sync
> with package upgrades they are not proper config files and should be moved.
>
> | move them, but I am not sure what the best place for them is either :/ ..
> | suggestions are welcome. The files serve as configuration in the sense
> | that they provide maven with a "mapping" between where maven expects
> | jars to be, and where they actually are on the system.
>
> The obvious choice seems to be %{_datadir}/maven2/fragments and most
> other files appear to be in %{_datadir}/maven2.
>

Yep I am fine with this. I will make the change for the next version. A
change of this sort will require rebuild of all maven2 dependent
packages.

> The important thing besides single ownership by jpackage-utils is to
> move the maven macros into jpackage.macros so that you don't have to
> change every spec just to change the location of the files.
>

The fragment dir location is already a macros, and all maven related macros
are in jpackage-utils already.

Cheers,
Deepak

> - --
> Sincerely,
>
> David Walluck
> <david@zarb.org>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkhpEhYACgkQItObMyg2XCVcZwCgsmj7Go0jDO 5YjRb2s/5iKsxp
> HYUAn21+dloZoJ3A0boYwr3nqfaGuWy1
> =M/Pp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list

Le lundi 30 juin 2008 à 12:53 -0400, Deepak Bhole a écrit :

> I think moving them to jpackage-utils would be sufficient, as it owns a
> multitude of other java related directories right now.

If it's ok for files to exist in those directories without maven being
present on-system, they belong in jpp-utils.

If you require maven presence before allowing a package to drop content
there, they belong in the maven package

> I have put this
> down on my TODO list and will get to it on Monday (off today and
> tomorrow).
>
> > This would fix ownership issues for 22 packages currently.
> >
> > Another separate bug related issue is the fact that the contents of
> > /etc/maven/fragments do not seem to be configuration files, and so
> > probably should not live under /etc. I do not have sufficient Java
> > knowledge to propose a solution, however.
> >
>
> Correct, technically they are not configuration related files. I'd be happy to
> move them, but I am not sure what the best place for them is either :/ ..
> suggestions are welcome.

/var/lib/maven should be ok. Owned by the maven package

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging