[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Summary of the 2008-04-01 Packaging Committee meeting


On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 13:24 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> I'm curious about two points.  First, rpmlint can either complain that
> jars are indexed, or complain that they are not indexed.  In the
> default Fedora configuration, it complains if they are indexed.  Why?
> Is there some supported JVM on some supported Fedora release that
> cannot handle indexed JARs?  I don't see anything about this in the
> JPackage guidelines, nor in the Fedora guidelines.

No one brought up the indexing issue.  I've never seen that rpmlint
warning myself.  Perhaps you should ask Ville.

> Second, I have a question about the use of Class-Path in JAR
> manifests.  The JPackage guidelines say nothing about it.  The Fedora
> guidelines only give a sed command to remove Class-Path entries, but
> do not discuss why they should be removed.

This was discussed during the process of editing the page:

"the problem with classpathes-in-manifest is you hardcode the location
of other jar files inside a file. So any common file operation like
copying, renaming, moving the referenced file or the jar itself will
break the classpath and trigger difficult-to-debug failures. When the
classpath is in a single place and not hidden in part inside jar files
maintenance is much easier and file operations do not require doing
surgery inside jar files - NicolasMailhot"

Feel free to request that justification be listed on the page (I really
don't know the process for making changes to guidelines after they're
voted upon by FPC), but I don't think it should be added right now since
these guidelines are in the process of FPC->FESCo ratification and
shouldn't be touch (AIUI).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]