[Fedora-packaging] Java guideline inconsistency

[Fernando Nasser]

Hi guys,

I wouldn't waste much time on this.  The new "de facto" standard for installation is the one defined by Maven anyway.
Even Java software that does not build with Maven grabs data from maven repositories these days (with Ant <get>, or something else).
JPP 6, RHEL-based products and future Fedora Java package updates will all install the JARs following strictly the Maven standard layout with unversioned symlinks.

One of the advantages of this is that it does not require any maven patch (although I'd like to keep the depmap) and facilitates regular (non-RPM) maven builds by developers.  Another is that a maven repo installed with RPMs can be made available as a multi-platform remote Maven repository.
Last but not least, it greatly facilitates parallel installation of diferent versions.  Although that is not recommended, we have some unavoidable cases so better account for them.

We will need to keep some of the old JAR file names as deprecated for a release or so for backwads compatibility or while the conversion takes place, but these are exactly like Jussi wants, unversioned.

Some preliminary tests were already made with good results.  Once we have ironed out some last details (I'd like a simpler mvn command line invocation for one thing and some scripts in jpackage-utils have to be enhanced or added) I can post a basic description of how each package should install its JARs for this to work.  I need to find a good link describing the default maven repository layout as reference to keep it simple and authoritative.

Regards to all,
Fernando




----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Overholt" <overholt at redhat.com>
To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" <fedora-packaging at redhat.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2009 4:44:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Java guideline inconsistency

* Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> [2009-05-09 13:25]:
> Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > 
> > there seems to be an inconsistency with the Java guidelines:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java
> > 
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Jar_file_naming states that
> > if the package only contains a single .jar file it should have the same
> > name as the package, but the ant and maven spec file templates
> > install .jar files as
> > 
> > cp -p [build path to jar]   \
> > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar
> > 
> I would lean towards Java#Jar_file_naming being clarified but I'm not a
> java guy.  Andrew, Fernando, Deepak, someone want to write up a
> clarification of this?

Sure, I'll speak about this with Deepak and others and get something
written up.

> > Also, I find it a bit inconsistent that java packages don't have to have
> > a java- prefix as python, perl, php and so on packages have to.
> 
> I do to but I think this is the standard for enough packages that we
> shouldn't look at fixing it unless it's causing breakage.

Agreed.  Most (all?) of this stuff came from JPackage and there's little
point in breaking compatibility/naming.

Andrew

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging