fre 2012-02-17 klockan 01:03 -0500 skrev David Walluck:
Yes, but that is exactly what I am complaining about (what I called
a
``horrible practice''. Well, actually I called it a ``paractice'', but
that was only because I don't have a spell checker right now).
If the upstream project has decided not to provide an artifact with the
name `%{name}', then why must we invent one? This only adds to the
naming confusion that this thread has been trying to address.
Having the package %{name} somewhere in there helps to prevent namespace
collisions, so it makes sense in a way. Except that it doesn't because
the build's name is still there!
The current guidelines means that in most cases there'll either be a
%{name}.jar file or symlink or there'll be a directory %{name} with all
the jars in it. Except in the case where the package contains exactly to
jars. Yes, that's weird.
In some cases, it's not even clear which artifact the packager
is
supposed to rename because there may be multiple (equally important)
artifacts.
Nope:
* If the package provides more than one JAR file, the
filenames assigned by the build MUST be used (without
versions).
/Alexander