[Bug 591947] Review Request: maven-jar-plugin - Maven JAR Plugin

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591947

--- Comment #7 from Chen Lei <supercyper1 at gmail.com> 2010-05-15 04:51:34 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Hi Alexander, 
> > 
> > I found that many -javadoc packages don't create a symbolic link from
> > %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Java package
> > guideline also don't mention that, are they all need fixing?    
> Having unversioned javadoc directory is good to have for some commonly used
> packages like apache-commons-io (a number of developers should be using this
> javadocs). But there is no point having things like that for packages like the
> maven-jar-plugin. Virtually noone except a few maven developers will be reading
> that so we are not causing any inconvenience.
> For me this should be up to the packager.    

Thanks for clarification, so now we have three places for -javadoc subpackage? 
1.
%files javadoc
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}

2.
%files javadoc
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}

e.g. ant
3.
%files javadoc
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}

e.g.jgrapht and Specfile Template in guideline
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java


Will it be better to simply install all javadoc to  %{_javadocdir}/%{name} as
the java packaging guideline?


There's  also a talk in KDE-SIG meeting about which place is better for html
documentions recently.

See
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-05-11/kde-sig.2010-05-11-14.02.log.html

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.