Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at
Wed Nov 3 17:27:37 UTC 2010

On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:

> FYI the versionless jar/javadocs files are now in the draft (thanks for
> the suggestion, somehow none of us thought of that)

Thanks for considering it.

> But keep those comments coming, we'll try to keep working on the
> guidelines to reflect current needs of packagers.

Some other things off the top of my head, in no particular order:

1) I'd like to see crosslinking of javadocs at least a SHOULD, and I wouldn't 
mind a MUST at all.  I'm also leaning towards making it a MUST for javadoc 
packages that crosslink with other javadoc packages require the ones they 
crosslink with.

2) Regarding wrapper scripts, I'd like to point out the %jpackage_script macro 
for creating them.  Here's one example of it in action:
Also, most invocations of it will want to set the last argument of it to true 
(such as in the example above) to make jpackage-utils stuff prefer a JRE over 
a full Java SDK (assuming of course that they work with just a JRE installed 
and don't require the full SDK) to avoid problems like these:

3) In my opinion, the whole alternatives setup in the JRE and SDK packages 
should be purged.  It's a relic from times that are long gone, and at the 
moment causes just complexity and possibilities for breakage; it kind of even 
encourages breakage by giving people the option to easily switch between 
_incompatible_ java implementations (e.g. versions) for the system default 
Java, breaking programs' expectations.  environment-modules would sound like a 
more appropriate solution for switching the Java implementation when needed.  
I'm not holding my breath for this to happen too soon, but hope that it 
sometime will.

More information about the devel mailing list