Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com> writes:
On 01/14/2014 03:32 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> I want to give our current packaging draft to FPC for approval. The
> diff is relatively big. See original announcement from October for
> more details.
> To simplify/speed up vote please reply to this email with +1 votes, or
> comments if you'd like some changes done to the draft before I pass it on.
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-October/005020....
First of all, I think there should be revision ID so that people know
exactly on which version of the draft they are voting on. I am assuming
you mean revision 366989.
I didn't want to complicate things and I expected mostly minor
changes. I'd re-run the vote if the changes turned out to be major.
I really like the idea of limiting the guidelines to strict
and leaving the best practices to other documents (such as Java
packaging HOWTO). However I can see one issue:
Current Java packaging guidelines includes the following sentence: "If
upstream project does not ship pom.xml file official maven repo should
be checked and if there are pom.xml files they SHOULD be installed." It
seems to be removed from current draft. I would like it to be retained
as it effectively allows provenpackagers to add missing POMs to packages
they don't own, without the need to file bugs or wait for days/weeks.
If the above sentence (or equivalent) is re-introduced it will be +1
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com