Group tag for Java libraries and their documentation

[Mary Ellen Foster]

Going by the options proposed by rpmlint, the only possible tag for
any development library -- whatever language it's written in -- is
"Development/Libraries". At the same time, there are lots of packages
using "Development/Libraries/Java"; on my computer,
    rpm -q -g Development/Libraries/Java | wc -l
yields 46 of them.

I also have the same question about "Documentation" vs.
"Development/Documentation" for javadoc packages -- rpmlint only
accepts the former, but a nontrivial number of packages use the
latter.

So what's the official verdict on this?

Thanks,

MEF

-- 
Mary Ellen Foster  --  http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/
Informatik 6: Robotics and Embedded Systems, Technische Universität München
and ICCS, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh

[Patrice Dumas]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:26:06AM +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
>  
>  So what's the official verdict on this? 
Not official, but the Groups are not used a lot currently, they are
superseded by comps. The 'official' list of groups is in 
/usr/share/doc/rpm-4.6.0/GROUPS
but indeed there aren't too many.

rpmbiuld doesn't need a Group: anymore, so maybe in the future they
could be completly omitted from spec files.

--
Pat

[Mary Ellen Foster]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:26:06AM +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
> >
> > So what's the official verdict on this?
>
>  Not official, but the Groups are not used a lot currently, they are
>  superseded by comps. The 'official' list of groups is in
>  /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.6.0/GROUPS
>  but indeed there aren't too many.
>
>  rpmbiuld doesn't need a Group: anymore, so maybe in the future they
>  could be completly omitted from spec files. 
So any Group-related warnings from rpmlint can be safely ignored?

MEF

-- 
Mary Ellen Foster  --  http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/
Informatik 6: Robotics and Embedded Systems, Technische Universität München
and ICCS, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh

[Patrice Dumas]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:35:22AM +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
>  
>  So any Group-related warnings from rpmlint can be safely ignored? 
This rpmlint warning is touched upon at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#no...
implying that it should be fixed, but this is also non-official.

I'd say use your best judgement. 

--
Pat

[Tom Callaway]

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:35 +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
>  On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Patrice Dumas
> <pertusus(a)free.fr&gt; wrote:
>  > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:26:06AM +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
>  >>
>  >> So what's the official verdict on this?
>  >
>  > Not official, but the Groups are not used a lot currently, they are
>  > superseded by comps. The 'official' list of groups is in
>  > /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.6.0/GROUPS
>  > but indeed there aren't too many.
>  >
>  > rpmbiuld doesn't need a Group: anymore, so maybe in the future they
>  > could be completly omitted from spec files.
>  
>  So any Group-related warnings from rpmlint can be safely ignored? 
We decided a while back that as soon as rpm didn't require Group
anymore, we would stop including it. In the interim, you can put
whatever you want in that field.

~spot