Re: [fedora-java] Could someone, please, clarify situation with *-javadoc

[Alexander Boström]

(changing lists)

fre 2010-05-07 klockan 13:41 -0400 skrev Andrew Overholt:
>  Hi,
>  
>  > Sometimes *-javadoc sub-packages explicitly requires main package, and
>  > sometimes - not. I'm not a java-expert, so I don't know which is
>  > correct.
>  
>  I don't think it really matters.  In some cases, sure, it would be nice
>  to ensure that the package is around if someone is looking at the API
>  documentation.  Other times someone may only want to peruse the APIs
>  without installing the implementation. 
Agreed. Those deps are now removed from the examples in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Abo/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate which I
previously submitted as a proposed guideline update. (I hope I submitted
it the right way...)

Somehow I managed to not notice the java-devel list until recently so I
think this is the first time I've mentioned the draft here. Please read
and comment on it! The number of changes are growing...

I should move it out of the User:Abo namespace so it doesn't look like a
personal page.

/Alexander

Could someone, please, clarify situation with *-javadoc

[Guido Grazioli]

2010/5/7 Alexander Boström <abo(a)root.snowtree.se&gt;:
>  fre 2010-05-07 klockan 13:41 -0400 skrev Andrew Overholt:
> >> Sometimes *-javadoc sub-packages explicitly requires main package, and
> >> sometimes - not. I'm not a java-expert, so I don't know which is
> >> correct.
> >
> > I don't think it really matters.  In some cases, sure, it would be nice
> > to ensure that the package is around if someone is looking at the API
> > documentation.  Other times someone may only want to peruse the APIs
> > without installing the implementation.
>
>  Agreed. Those deps are now removed from the examples in
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Abo/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate which I
>  previously submitted as a proposed guideline update. (I hope I submitted
>  it the right way...) 
I think there are use cases for which you want to install javadocs without
installing the bytecode; besides that, the Requires: tag is to make explicit
some runtime dependency, not a simple relation like this one.

Someone would disagree with me; however i think any decision is taken on
that topic would be turned in a MUST (depend or not depend) for the sake
of coherency.

>  Somehow I managed to not notice the java-devel list until recently so
> I
>  think this is the first time I've mentioned the draft here. Please read
>  and comment on it! The number of changes are growing... 
Some notes:

1- BuildRequires and Requires

At a minimum, Java packages MUST:

BuildRequires: java-devel [>= specific_version]
BuildRequires: jpackage-utils

Requires: java >= specific_version
Requires: jpackage-utils

This code snippet is telling me that specifying ">= specific_version"
in BuildRequires: java-devel is optional, while it is mandatory in
Requires: java

I have no objections to that, but the ant and maven templates below
must be updated consistently with that.

2- JavaDoc installation

"The name of the subdirectory SHOULD be either %{name}
or %{name}-%{version} with a symlink %{name} pointing to it."

I would turn that in a "MUST be either " one or the other: different directory
naming should be a rare exception and SHOULD doesnt seem strong enough.

3- maven template

You could drop the dependency on the main package for the manual too.
Anyway, the line should be:
Requires:       %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
not
Requires:       %{name}-%{version}-%{release}

I also would write a more general %add_to_maven_depmap macro call, from:
%add_to_maven_depmap org.apache.maven %{name} %{version} JPP %{name}
to:
%add_to_maven_depmap [groupId] [artifactId] %{version}
JPP[/optional_subDir] [jarName]

Finally, in the %files section:
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms/*
or
%{mavenpomdir}/*

Hope that helps
guido



-- 
Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli(a)gmail.com&gt;
Via Parri 11 48011 - Alfonsine (RA)
Mobile: [phone] (10-18)
Key FP = 7040 F398 0DED A737 7337  DAE1 12DC A698 5E81 2278
Linked in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/guidograzioli

Could someone, please, clarify situation with *-javadoc

[Alexander Boström]

lör 2010-05-08 klockan 00:56 +0200 skrev Guido Grazioli:

>  Someone would disagree with me; however i think any decision is taken
> on
>  that topic would be turned in a MUST (depend or not depend) for the sake
>  of coherency. 
I can only think of rather far-fetched situations where such a
dependency would be needed, so I guess I agree...

>  This code snippet is telling me that specifying ">=
> specific_version"
>  in BuildRequires: java-devel is optional, while it is mandatory in
>  Requires: java
>  
>  I have no objections to that, but the ant and maven templates below
>  must be updated consistently with that. 
Good call, fixed.

>  2- JavaDoc installation
>  
>  "The name of the subdirectory SHOULD be either %{name}
>  or %{name}-%{version} with a symlink %{name} pointing to it."
>  
>  I would turn that in a "MUST be either " one or the other: different directory
>  naming should be a rare exception and SHOULD doesnt seem strong enough. 
Hmm, I was too lazy to look for current counterexamples which might
provide guidance. Anyone have any? I changed it anyway.

>  You could drop the dependency on the main package for the manual too.
Fixed.

>  I also would write a more general %add_to_maven_depmap macro call,
> from:
>  %add_to_maven_depmap org.apache.maven %{name} %{version} JPP %{name}
>  to:
>  %add_to_maven_depmap [groupId] [artifactId] %{version}
>  JPP[/optional_subDir] [jarName] 
Ok, added with a comment.

>  Finally, in the %files section:
>  %{_datadir}/maven2/poms/*
>  or
>  %{mavenpomdir}/* 
Ok.

>  Hope that helps 
Awesome!

/Alexander