On 04/05/2010 07:48 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
On 04/04/2010 11:12 AM, Adam Young wrote:
> After doing the work using gem2rpm, I realized that we could do the same
> kind of thing for the Java dependencies that don't have RPMs in Fedora.
> The Maven repos tend to havea source jar with a standard naming
> convention right next to the binary jar, and the pom file has most of
> the info required by the RPM: License, version, dependencies, and so
> on. I've started working on a pom2rpm script that produces a spec
> file. And, to make Jesus happy, I wrote it in Ruby.
>
> So, for this sprint, I'd like to hand off the Group/Security tasks to
> someone else, and concentrate on getting Candlepin packaged as an RPM.
> Is this OK?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> candlepin mailing list
> candlepin(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/candlepin
I would reach out to the JBoss guys to see if they have done any
thinking in this area.. or with the jpackage guys. It would not hurt
to see what the issues are before you do it.
-- bk
Will do. I actuallyu talked with the JBoss folks, but they have this
Platform Neutral Approach that keeps them away from RPM. As for
JPackage, I suspect that they are not as dependant on the Maven repo
structure as we are. I was working with the guy who is trying to get
maven updated, and this approach grew out of that discussion. Is it OK
if I pursue this and someone else handels the Group stuff?