* Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)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