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 Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-26-2008, 12:43 AM
Andrew Overholt
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

* Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> [2008-03-25 21:08]:
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 23:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >
> > W/o being involved in jpackage I kinda liked their cross-distribution
> > type of work. Perhaps the Fedora java guidelines could flow back into
> > jpackage's. After all there are many jpackage folks around here.
>
> The conference call I was on with jpackage and RH and Fedora folks last
> week seemed to assume that the Fedora Packaging Guidelines would
> service /as/ the Jpackage guidelines, period.

I don't recall that. It was discussed that we'd like to deviate as
little as possible from JPackage conventions and work with them to get
critical changes we need accepted there.

Andrew
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 12:44 AM
Andrew Overholt
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

* Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> [2008-03-25 21:10]:
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 23:03 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > I don't see what changed since the discussion on JPackageNaming. The
> > original arguments still stand, and no further element occurred to my
> > knowledge to justify changing the compromise that was painfully
> > achieved.
>
> These reasons need to be actually enumerated somewhere, so that they can
> be re-examined with today's tools, and if today's tools aren't up to the
> task we can have a target to shoot for with tomorrow's tools. Thus far
> I have only seen hand wavy reasons as to why it's "needed" and no clear
> statements as to what problems are being solved with their existence.

I emailed people's "action items" from our little meeting and that was
on Fernano's plate. At the time he told me he was going to try to get
to it yesterday so I'll ping him to find out the status.

Andrew
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 01:00 AM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 21:43 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> I don't recall that. It was discussed that we'd like to deviate as
> little as possible from JPackage conventions and work with them to get
> critical changes we need accepted there.

Ok, I've made a bad assumption.

What is preventing the Fedora guidelines from becoming the jpackage
guidelines?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 09:28 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

Le Mer 26 mars 2008 03:00, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 21:43 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
>> I don't recall that. It was discussed that we'd like to deviate as
>> little as possible from JPackage conventions and work with them to
>> get
>> critical changes we need accepted there.
>
> Ok, I've made a bad assumption.
>
> What is preventing the Fedora guidelines from becoming the jpackage
> guidelines?

JPackage is a cross-distribution neutral ground. So its guidelines can
not be approved only at the Fedora level without alienating non-Fedora
JPP contributors. JPackage Fedora members can propose Fedora-oriented
changes, and those changes can be then adopted as-is by the project
(if other JPP players have no objection), but I don't think something
Fedora-branded, Fedora-hosted, and with only FPC or FESCO control is
going to fly.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 10:29 AM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 11:28 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> JPackage is a cross-distribution neutral ground. So its guidelines can
> not be approved only at the Fedora level without alienating non-Fedora
> JPP contributors. JPackage Fedora members can propose Fedora-oriented
> changes, and those changes can be then adopted as-is by the project
> (if other JPP players have no objection), but I don't think something
> Fedora-branded, Fedora-hosted, and with only FPC or FESCO control is
> going to fly.

Ok, I can see where that's coming from, but at this time, what are the
guideline differences? Surely the "JPP" guidelines could just be a set
of temporary exceptions from the Fedora guidelines until such time as
they get rolled into the Fedora guidelines? JPackage wouldn't be the
only ones making use of Fedora as an upstream for guidelines. I do
believe multiple other distros are using our licensing guidelines either
directly or as a cut/paste job.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 10:48 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

Le Mer 26 mars 2008 12:29, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> Surely the "JPP" guidelines could just be a set
> of temporary exceptions from the Fedora guidelines until such time as
> they get rolled into the Fedora guidelines? JPackage wouldn't be the
> only ones making use of Fedora as an upstream for guidelines.

Other distributions also have guideline ambitions so this is
definitely not going to fly. It's very wrong to think JPP only looks
at Fedora as guideline source and other distros are doing nothing in
the meanwhile.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 11:50 AM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 12:48 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mer 26 mars 2008 12:29, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> > Surely the "JPP" guidelines could just be a set
> > of temporary exceptions from the Fedora guidelines until such time as
> > they get rolled into the Fedora guidelines? JPackage wouldn't be the
> > only ones making use of Fedora as an upstream for guidelines.
>
> Other distributions also have guideline ambitions so this is
> definitely not going to fly. It's very wrong to think JPP only looks
> at Fedora as guideline source and other distros are doing nothing in
> the meanwhile.

Can we see some examples instead of just vague threats of "not going to
fly" ?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 12:28 PM
Andrew Overholt
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 23:03 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 25 mars 2008 Ã* 17:06 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> > I'm not sure what this section is intended to provide. It seems to imply
> > that the JPackage Guidelines are the real guidelines
> [...]
>
> It's canonical in the sense it's an external document we respect, just
> like the FHS, the freedesktop.org specs, etc are external conventions we
> respect. Must each of those documents be parroted in our guidelines to
> indicate we follow them?

+1

> > 8. "%{_jnidir} usually expands into /usr/lib/java." This should probably
> > be %{_libdir}/java.
>
> The original jpp tools scripts are not multilib-safe (I didn't have a
> x86_64 system available when I wrote them). When the problem was
> identified by people with the right hardware, a quickfix (proposed by RH
> IIRC) consisted in changing all the %{_libdir}s in the original
> guidelines with /usr/lib.
>
> Since then no one took the time to make the scripts multilib-safe.

Tom Fitzsimmons has said more than once this is on his list of things to
do but he has yet to have time to accomplish it.

> > 10. It might also be worthwhile to do an "ant" spec template and a
> > "maven" spec template.
> [...]
>
> I fear the ant case is likely to be quite un-representative. It would be
> like making a "make" case without the GNU project having imposed strong
> conventions on standard makefile targets.

Agreed. A maven template is perHAPs more useful, but I'll let maven
people take that one.

Andrew

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 01:14 PM
Andrew Overholt
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

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:
> 1. 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.).

> 2. "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?

> 3. "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?

> 4. "Java packages in Fedora should enumerate their dependencies with
> Requires." I think this might need to be a "must", not just a "should".

Fixed.

> 5. 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.

> 6. 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.).

> 7. 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.

> 8. "%{_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.

> 9. I think you've got an accidental line wrap in the example for
> "Packaging JAR files that use JNI"

Is this fixed now?

> 10. 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

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 01:21 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:14 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:

> Are you satisfied with Nicolas' answer on this one?

I'd still prefer a rewording there, to clearly state that if/when the
two documents are in conflict, the Fedora Java Guidelines win.

> > 3. "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?

Sure.

> > 8. "%{_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.

Is nothing in the Java space multilib? If not, maybe we can let this
slide as is, but I suspect lots of Java stuff is multilib, and we need
to get this fixed.

> > 9. I think you've got an accidental line wrap in the example for
> > "Packaging JAR files that use JNI"
>
> Is this fixed now?

Looks good.

> > 10. 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?

To be honest, no. If we're going to have maven based packages, I would
feel much better about having an example template.

~spot

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:44 PM.

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