On 02/22/2013 02:43 PM, Jon VanAlten wrote:
Under Filenames:
"Alternatively, the file can be installed to the subdirectory
%{_javadir}/%{name}/ under its usual name."
It seems like the guidelines are intended to provide an obvious
mapping from package name to jar file name. This loophole breaks
the mapping. I'm not sure why, what problem is this trying to
solve (that isn't solved by a symlink with the usual name)?
I have disagreed with the Fedora naming and location policy for a long
time now. This includes the fact the JNI-using jars presumably should
not have a separate directory as this is not the case in the upstream
maven repositories, which require it to have a unique artifactId instead.
In my option, a package MUST use the upstream jar names. Do you really
want to continue to have jar names that only exist in Fedora? This must
be a confusion for both developers and packagers with no real gain that
I can think of.
Of course, in a flat layout we sometimes find a jar name that has no
indication of which project it came from. It it not clear what to do in
that case (placing in %{_javadir}/<project name> is an option, although
if I were to do it over I would probably use the maven groupId instead.).
but... under Specfile Template for Apache Maven:
"# BR java-devel only if you need specific version
[BuildRequires: java-devel >= java version]"
I think maven(-local) should already Requires: java-devel such that if
you're building with maven this should already be covered.
One might say the same for ant, although there is a could case to be
made for splitting the `ant' executable script from the `ant' jar artifact.