Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Description of problem: eclipse-ptp-sdk package is installing JAR files into wrong locations. According to Java packaging guidelines[1] all architecture-independent JAR files MUST go into %{_javadir} or a Java-version specific directory %{_javadir}-* as appropriate and JAR files using JNI or containing JNI shared objects themselves MUST be placed in %{_jnidir}. eclipse-ptp package violates that guidelines by installing JAR files into other directories. If JAR were put into some non-standard directory for technical reasons then these JARs should be moved to proper locations (as described in the guidelines[1]) and symbolic links can be placed in the previous location. Besides eclipse-ptp-sdk, 16 other binary packages built from eclipse-ptp source package seem to install files into wrong location. The full list is is: * eclipse-photran * eclipse-photran-intel * eclipse-photran-xlf * eclipse-ptp * eclipse-ptp-etfw-ppw * eclipse-ptp-etfw-tau * eclipse-ptp-etfw-tau-fortran * eclipse-ptp-gem * eclipse-ptp-pldt-fortran * eclipse-ptp-pldt-upc * eclipse-ptp-rdt * eclipse-ptp-rdt-sync-fortran * eclipse-ptp-rdt-xlc * eclipse-ptp-remote-rse * eclipse-ptp-rm-contrib * eclipse-ptp-sci * eclipse-ptp-sdk I am not going to attach the full list of JAR files, but this list can be obtained using repoquery: repoquery --repoid rawhide -l eclipse-photran eclipse-photran-intel eclipse-photran-xlf eclipse-ptp eclipse-ptp-etfw-ppw eclipse-ptp-etfw-tau eclipse-ptp-etfw-tau-fortran eclipse-ptp-gem eclipse-ptp-pldt-fortran eclipse-ptp-pldt-upc eclipse-ptp-rdt eclipse-ptp-rdt-sync-fortran eclipse-ptp-rdt-xlc eclipse-ptp-remote-rse eclipse-ptp-rm-contrib eclipse-ptp-sci eclipse-ptp-sdk | grep '\.jar$' | grep -v /usr/share/java | grep -v /usr/lib/java Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 6.0.3-4 Additional info: [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
I was not aware that the separate Eclipse guidelines was officially approved packaging guidelines. See comment in bug#923270 for more details. Because of the above I am closing this bug now.