On Sunday 21 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
It probably did, and because the above is related to config files,
leaving behind *.rpmorig is quite appropriate IMO. But leaving such
cruft behind is not that fine for non-config files.
Well, instead of a mv to
Ville Skyttä wrote:
It probably did, and because the above is related to config files, leaving
behind *.rpmorig is quite appropriate IMO. But leaving such cruft behind
is not that fine for non-config files.
Well, instead of a mv to rpmorig, a rm -rf could probably be used.
Kevin
On 11/18/2010 01:59 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install
to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for
On Thursday 18 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Does this even need %pretrans at all? Rex Dieter used this in kde-settings-
kdm:
%pre kdm
## KDM fixup(s)
# [snip similar hack for a moved/symlinked %config file]
# handle %%_datadir/config/kdm - /etc/kde/kdm
[ -d %{_datadir}/config/kdm -a
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install
to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for bookmarking and
javadoc crosslinking.
One thing
Panu Matilainen wrote:
It's not the script itself that's bad and bizarre, it's the entire
%pretrans mechanism that's problematic.
%pretrans runs before fingerprinting (this is required for the
directory/symlink replacing tricks to work at all), which means that the
transaction can abort due
On 17 November 2010 05:29, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install to
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for bookmarking and javadoc
crosslinking.
One thing you have to be careful of, no
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:45:35AM +, Mat Booth wrote:
On 17 November 2010 05:29, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install to
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for bookmarking and
On Wednesday 17 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install
to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for bookmarking and
javadoc crosslinking.
One thing you have to be careful of, no matter which
Ville Skyttä wrote:
I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install to
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for bookmarking and javadoc
crosslinking.
One thing you have to be careful of, no matter which way you decide, is that
you MUST NOT change a directory to
On 11/3/10 2:14 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
And it's unreasonable to expect those ISVs to change when Fedora has
not managed to package a working JBoss. If the Red Hat Java packaging
can not even be used with the top Red Hat Java product, what is there
to say? (and on this subject, I
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
There is no sane way to make javadoc crosslink in a sane way, i.e. without
patching builds. That's why I would say let's postpone this until we can
tell packagers HOWTO do it.
I'm not against postponing as long as it's not forgotten
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging guidelines. We
would welcome wider discussion/comments at this point. From our point of
view guidelines seem ready for approval by FPC.
You can see current version of draft
On 11/02/2010 05:11 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Tuesday 02 November 2010, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging guidelines. We
would welcome wider discussion/comments at this point. From our point of
view guidelines seem ready for approval by FPC.
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
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 19:27 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
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,
Having a semi-sane way to install multi-vendor multi-version JVMs is
still needed EPEL
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Ville Skyttä wrote:
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
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 19:27 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
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,
Having a semi-sane way to
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 21:32 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 19:27 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
3) In my opinion, the whole alternatives setup in the JRE and SDK
packages should be purged. It's a
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 21:32 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 19:27 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
3) In my opinion, the whole alternatives setup
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 22:28 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 21:32 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 19:27 +0200,
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 22:28 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 21:32 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 19:27
On 11/3/10 2:14 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
And it's unreasonable to expect those ISVs to change when Fedora has not
managed to package a working JBoss. If the Red Hat Java packaging can
not even be used with the top Red Hat Java product, what is there to
say? (and on this subject, I don't
On 11/3/10 2:14 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
And it's unreasonable to expect those ISVs to change when Fedora has not
managed to package a working JBoss. If the Red Hat Java packaging can
not even be used with the top Red Hat Java product, what is there to
say? (and on this subject, I don't
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 14:35 -0700, Jesse Keating a écrit :
On 11/3/10 2:14 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
And it's unreasonable to expect those ISVs to change when Fedora has not
managed to package a working JBoss. If the Red Hat Java packaging can
not even be used with the top Red Hat
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 23:54 +0200, Alexander Kurtakov a écrit :
On 11/3/10 2:14 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
And it's unreasonable to expect those ISVs to change when Fedora has not
managed to package a working JBoss. If the Red Hat Java packaging can
not even be used with the
Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging guidelines. We
would welcome wider discussion/comments at this point. From our point of
view guidelines seem ready for approval by FPC.
You can see current version of draft here:
SO == Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes:
SO Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging
SO guidelines. We would welcome wider discussion/comments at this
SO point. From our point of view guidelines seem ready for approval by
SO FPC.
Could we get a diff of these
SO == Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes:
SO Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging
SO guidelines.
It's terribly rude to crosspost to a list which simply rejects messages
from non-subscribers.
- J
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/02/2010 03:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
SO == Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes:
SO Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging
SO guidelines. We would welcome wider discussion/comments at this
SO point. From our point of view guidelines seem ready
On 11/02/2010 03:30 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
SO == Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes:
SO Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging
SO guidelines.
It's terribly rude to crosspost to a list which simply rejects messages
from non-subscribers.
I'll make
SO == Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes:
SO Recently? I haven't heard of Java-specific guideline changes for
SO past few months. Care to enlighten me?
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/13
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-October/000699.html
- J
On 11/02/2010 04:10 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
SO == Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes:
SO Recently? I haven't heard of Java-specific guideline changes for
SO past few months. Care to enlighten me?
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/13
On Tuesday 02 November 2010, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging guidelines. We
would welcome wider discussion/comments at this point. From our point of
view guidelines seem ready for approval by FPC.
You can see current version of draft here:
34 matches
Mail list logo
