I wouldn't waste much time on this. The new "de facto" standard for
installation is the one defined by Maven anyway.
Even Java software that does not build with Maven grabs data from maven repositories these
days (with Ant <get>, or something else).
JPP 6, RHEL-based products and future Fedora Java package updates will all install the
JARs following strictly the Maven standard layout with unversioned symlinks.
One of the advantages of this is that it does not require any maven patch (although
I'd like to keep the depmap) and facilitates regular (non-RPM) maven builds by
developers. Another is that a maven repo installed with RPMs can be made available as a
multi-platform remote Maven repository.
Last but not least, it greatly facilitates parallel installation of diferent versions.
Although that is not recommended, we have some unavoidable cases so better account for
We will need to keep some of the old JAR file names as deprecated for a release or so for
backwads compatibility or while the conversion takes place, but these are exactly like
Jussi wants, unversioned.
Some preliminary tests were already made with good results. Once we have ironed out some
last details (I'd like a simpler mvn command line invocation for one thing and some
scripts in jpackage-utils have to be enhanced or added) I can post a basic description of
how each package should install its JARs for this to work. I need to find a good link
describing the default maven repository layout as reference to keep it simple and
Regards to all,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Overholt" <overholt(a)redhat.com>
To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora"
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2009 4:44:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Java guideline inconsistency
* Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> [2009-05-09 13:25]:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> there seems to be an inconsistency with the Java guidelines:
> if the package only contains a single .jar file it should have the same
> name as the package, but the ant and maven spec file templates
> install .jar files as
> cp -p [build path to jar] \
I would lean towards Java#Jar_file_naming being clarified but I'm not a
java guy. Andrew, Fernando, Deepak, someone want to write up a
clarification of this?
Sure, I'll speak about this with Deepak and others and get something
> Also, I find it a bit inconsistent that java packages don't
have to have
> a java- prefix as python, perl, php and so on packages have to.
I do to but I think this is the standard for enough packages that we
shouldn't look at fixing it unless it's causing breakage.
Agreed. Most (all?) of this stuff came from JPackage and there's little
point in breaking compatibility/naming.
Fedora-packaging mailing list