[fedora-java] Fedora vs JPackage naming

[Aleksandar Kurtakov]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Walluck" <david at zarb.org>
> To: java-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:05:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [fedora-java] Fedora vs JPackage naming
> 
> On 02/17/2012 02:41 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > of jars manually) I can understand the reasoning. Plus in the
> > guidelines there is a statement that if package installs more than
> > 2
> > jars they should go into _javadir/name/ which at least for me makes
> > it perfectly viable place for installation if your package is
> > coming
> > from the same source and you depend on that previous package. I'm
> 
> As to the non-flat dir structure and renaming of jars:
> 
> Does it work with ant out of the box? No.
-1 Nothing works with ant out of the box.

> Does it work with ivy out of the box? No.
+1 but there are only a few packages in Fedora that use ivy.

> Does it work with gradle out of the box? No.
-1 Well, gradle is not in Fedora and there is no one working on it. It's design is so badly broken that it will not work for pure source builds without network access without a major rewrite so I don't care about it until this happens.

> Does it work with maven out of the box (without the depmap hack)? No.
-1 For something to work with maven out of the box there has to be a maven repo. But files installed only in maven repo will fail usage from all other build systems. This can be achieved but it's maven specific development thus irrelevant to the general considerations.

Does it work with pde.build out of the box? No.
-1 Nothing works with pde.build out of the box.

Does it work with tycho out of the box? No.
-1 This is actually in the same both as maven - it needs it's p2 repo but this is smth the people that care for maven should do - fix/extend their own stuff.

So the only solution that at least have chances to satisfy our needs is Ivy :).

Alex


> 
> So, my preference stems from these requirements and not what the
> guidelines currently say or what the packager prefers. I'd prefer a
> new
> guideline that meets all four requirements above.
> --
> java-devel mailing list
> java-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel