On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 23:03 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mardi 25 mars 2008 à 17:06 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a
écrit :
> I'm not sure what this section is intended to provide. It seems to imply
> that the JPackage Guidelines are the real guidelines
[...]
It's canonical in the sense it's an external document we respect, just
like the FHS, the
freedesktop.org specs, etc are external conventions we
respect. Must each of those documents be parroted in our guidelines to
indicate we follow them?
+1
> 8. "%{_jnidir} usually expands into /usr/lib/java."
This should probably
> be %{_libdir}/java.
The original jpp tools scripts are not multilib-safe (I didn't have a
x86_64 system available when I wrote them). When the problem was
identified by people with the right hardware, a quickfix (proposed by RH
IIRC) consisted in changing all the %{_libdir}s in the original
guidelines with /usr/lib.
Since then no one took the time to make the scripts multilib-safe.
Tom Fitzsimmons has said more than once this is on his list of things to
do but he has yet to have time to accomplish it.
> 10. It might also be worthwhile to do an "ant" spec
template and a
> "maven" spec template.
[...]
I fear the ant case is likely to be quite un-representative. It would be
like making a "make" case without the GNU project having imposed strong
conventions on standard makefile targets.
Agreed. A maven template is perHAPs more useful, but I'll let maven
people take that one.
Andrew