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, 02:22 PM
Andrew Overholt
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

* Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> [2008-03-26 10:21]:
> 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.

Done. Let me know if it's not good enough.

> > > 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.

Java stuff is noarch, normally. Existing packages that are built with
gcj have lots of workarounds to deal with multilib issues
(brp-repack-jars; the unpacking and repacking of jars to set the
creation dates to 1980-01-01 at the end of eclipse.spec, etc.). It will
be nice to fix these issues and having OpenJDK JIT support on more
arches will help.

fitzsim, any more thoughts here?

> > > 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.

Deepak, can you do a maven one? I really think doing an ant one is a
waste of time (and the main template uses ant anyway).

Andrew

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 02:31 PM
Deepak Bhole
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

* Andrew Overholt <overholt@redhat.com> [2008-03-26 11:22]:
> * Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> [2008-03-26 10:21]:
> > 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.
>
> Done. Let me know if it's not good enough.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Java stuff is noarch, normally. Existing packages that are built with
> gcj have lots of workarounds to deal with multilib issues
> (brp-repack-jars; the unpacking and repacking of jars to set the
> creation dates to 1980-01-01 at the end of eclipse.spec, etc.). It will
> be nice to fix these issues and having OpenJDK JIT support on more
> arches will help.
>
> fitzsim, any more thoughts here?
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Deepak, can you do a maven one? I really think doing an ant one is a
> waste of time (and the main template uses ant anyway).
>

Sure. I will write one up later today and put it on the wiki.

Deepak

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 02:31 PM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

Le Mer 26 mars 2008 13:50, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> 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" ?

Sure

http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/Java/JPackage/skel.spec
http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/Java/JPackage

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 02:36 PM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

Le Mer 26 mars 2008 14:28, Andrew Overholt a écrit :
>
> 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 :

>> > 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.

BTW this was by no means an indictment, Tom Fitzsimmon is not the only
one who could fix the scripts, it was just an explanation why putting
%{_libdir} in guidelines now would explode horribly.

Regards,

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 02:39 PM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

Le Mer 26 mars 2008 15:21, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :

>> > 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.

JVMs and JNI bits are multilib. Though before openjdk the x86_64 port
was too broken to be widely used.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 02:41 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 16:31 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Sure
>
> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/Java/JPackage/skel.spec
> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/Java/JPackage

Gee, seems like they're trying to solve all the same problems with
jpackage that we are. I'm sensing a trend...

While overuse of macros may at times be ugly, those usages seem to be a
common desire both in Fedora and Mandirva to deal with jpackage
packages.

If all the distros are making guidelines to cope with the shortcommings
of jpackage packages, why can't we just fix the jpackage packages?

--
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, 02:57 PM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

Le Mer 26 mars 2008 16:41, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 16:31 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Sure
>>
>> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/Java/JPackage/skel.spec
>> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/Java/JPackage
>
> Gee, seems like they're trying to solve all the same problems with
> jpackage that we are. I'm sensing a trend...
>
> While overuse of macros may at times be ugly, those usages seem to be
> a
> common desire both in Fedora and Mandirva to deal with jpackage
> packages.
>
> If all the distros are making guidelines to cope with the
> shortcommings
> of jpackage packages, why can't we just fix the jpackage packages?

Because all the distro guideline guys want to work inside their own
personal guideline committee instead of meeting each other at the
project level where they have less control. Which can't work as long
as the project is shared.

If you want it to work either have everyone involved CC the messages
to the jpackage-discuss mailing list or delegate someone from FPC to
work there.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 03:02 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 16:57 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Because all the distro guideline guys want to work inside their own
> personal guideline committee instead of meeting each other at the
> project level where they have less control. Which can't work as long
> as the project is shared.

Well, we have this new freedesktop.org mailing list for cross-distro
cooperation. Sounds like a great place to bring such discussions.

>
> If you want it to work either have everyone involved CC the messages
> to the jpackage-discuss mailing list or delegate someone from FPC to
> work there.

Well I'm no longer on FPC, but I wouldn't mind taking this up on the
freedesktop list. Would somebody from jpackage who does packaging
guidelines like to join said list?
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions

--
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, 03:08 PM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

Le Mer 26 mars 2008 16:57, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
>
> Le Mer 26 mars 2008 16:41, Jesse Keating a écrit :

>> If all the distros are making guidelines to cope with the
>> shortcommings
>> of jpackage packages, why can't we just fix the jpackage packages?
>
> Because all the distro guideline guys want to work inside their own
> personal guideline committee instead of meeting each other at the
> project level where they have less control. Which can't work as long
> as the project is shared.
>
> If you want it to work either have everyone involved CC the messages
> to the jpackage-discuss mailing list or delegate someone from FPC to
> work there.

(Though to be honest the Mandriva guys did try. But they had no one
representing FPC to talk to)

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 03-26-2008, 03:40 PM
Andrew Overholt
 
Default Java packaging guidelines draft

* Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> [2008-03-26 12:03]:
> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 16:57 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Because all the distro guideline guys want to work inside their own
> > personal guideline committee instead of meeting each other at the
> > project level where they have less control. Which can't work as long
> > as the project is shared.
>
> Well, we have this new freedesktop.org mailing list for cross-distro
> cooperation. Sounds like a great place to bring such discussions.

There's no need to move this to freedesktop.org since JPackage is
already distro-neutral. Fixes should be made *with* JPackage (with
their blessing and that of the other distros, of course).

Here's a potential way forward from Fedora's side:

1) get Fedora guidelines in order
2) distill divergences from JPackage
3) work with JPackage to deal with divergences thereby fixing other
distros, etc.

I think we're well on the way towards solving 1) above. 2) will fall
out of that and the many contributors to *both* Fedora and JPackage can
take the changes and present them in JPackage forums and deal with 3).

Then we can deal with the actual hard problems of merging
contributions/contributors, inter-leaving of repos, etc.

Andrew

--
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 01:49 PM.

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