On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Richard Fearn wrote:
> eclipse-findbugs - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068044
> - Eclipse plugin; continue to depend on java
FWIW I'd say the whole java* dependency is pretty much superfluous
here, eclipse-jdt should be enough.
--
devel mailing li
I've been through my packages today and decided as follows:
eclipse-findbugs - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068044
- Eclipse plugin; continue to depend on java
findbugs - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068070
- Swing app; continue to depend on java
findbugs-contrib
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
> Actually we are strongly considering getting rid of javadocs
> completely[1] mostly due to Java 8 problems.
If for whatever reason those problems won't be fixed, I suppose one
approach to them is passing the -Xdoclint:none flag to ja
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky <
sochotni...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Actually we are strongly considering getting rid of javadocs
> completely[1] mostly due to Java 8 problems. We might be able to leave
> them be perhaps, but it's just a lot of work with uncertain
> benefits/us
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> I'm all with you Ville.
> But this requires someone jumping in to do work and there is noone. We
> have to live in reality - noone is showing any interest into working on
> this :(.
I am willing to help with an effort to bring sanity
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:45:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Java headless bugs
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
> wrote:
> >
> > Since javadoc subpackages put files in /usr/s
Ville Skyttä writes:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
> wrote:
>>
>> Since javadoc subpackages put files in /usr/share/javadoc they must
>> require package that provides this directory.
>
> In my opinion all javadocs should be crosslinked with local JDK's
> javadocs (+ ot
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
>
> Since javadoc subpackages put files in /usr/share/javadoc they must
> require package that provides this directory.
In my opinion all javadocs should be crosslinked with local JDK's
javadocs (+ others as appropriate) and have a dep
Richard Fearn writes:
>>> Slightly off-topic: fedora-review is telling packagers NOT to add
>>> "Requires: jpackage-utils" to javadoc subpackages because that is added
>>> automatically, but I see no mention of this on
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java.
>>
>> Guidelines state that
>> Slightly off-topic: fedora-review is telling packagers NOT to add
>> "Requires: jpackage-utils" to javadoc subpackages because that is added
>> automatically, but I see no mention of this on
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java.
>
> Guidelines state that package must have "R: jpackag
Jerry James writes:
> I've got a few comments and questions about the recently filed bugs asking
> us to switch from Requires: java to Requires: java-headless. First, the
> bugs list some web pages to view for more information. Number two on that
> list is this:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wi
2014 6:31:22 PM
> Subject: Java headless bugs
>
> I've got a few comments and questions about the recently filed bugs asking us
> to switch from Requires: java to Requires: java-headless. First, the bugs
> list some web pages to view for more information. Number two on that
On 02/21/2014 09:31 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> Third, developers are offered two options in those bugs: (1) don't do anything
> and an automatic tool will make the change for you on or after March 17, or
> (2) make the change to java-headless yourself. I have one package for which I
> need a third o
I've got a few comments and questions about the recently filed bugs asking
us to switch from Requires: java to Requires: java-headless. First, the
bugs list some web pages to view for more information. Number two on that
list is this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java\#BuildRequires_
14 matches
Mail list logo
