On 23/03/2012, at 2:43 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > Quoting Brett Porter (2012-03-21 21:06:05) >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/sandbox/trunk/rpm >> >> $ mvn install >> $ sudo rpm -ivh >> ~/.m2/repository/org/apache/maven/rpm/maven/3.0.4/maven-3.0.4.rpm >> >> Tested on CentOS 6.0. >> >> It installs to /usr/local/maven and /usr/local/bin/mvn. It also adds >> /etc/profile.d/maven.sh to add the bin directory to the PATH and M2_HOME >> variable, though neither are strictly necessary. Open to suggestions on >> improvements. > > I've had a look at the produced spec file and file layout and I do have > a few suggestions: > > 1. Put maven into /usr/share/maven instead of /usr/local/maven. Or if > you really want to put it into /usr/local subtree then > /usr/local/share/maven. /usr/local/maven is...at least weird from > FHS perspective. And then just symlink scripts into > /usr/[local/]bin. > > 2. Your license tag doesn't state license, just copyright. In most RPM Linux > distributions this would probably contain "ASL 2.0". Full license name > would be OK as well I guess > > 3. URL should probably be maven.apache.org instead of plain apache.org > > 4. Put settings.xml into /etc/ subtree (/etc/maven/ possibly) and > symlink it back to M2_HOME (possibly same thing for m2.conf). It > should also be marked as config file. > > 5. Handling of license/readme etc is different on different distros so I > guess that can stay inside M2_HOME > > 6. A nice sensible %description copied from main site would be nice :-)
These all sound like good changes to me - I'll have a look when I can, or if you want to patch it please do! > >> >> I removed and requirement on a JDK package, to avoid requiring one >> alternative over another. Open to suggestions if there is a better way to >> express that in the spec file. > > 7. I have asked around a bit and it might make sense to add "Requires: > java" (or java-devel) to the resulting RPM/spec. It would work at > least on Fedora/SuSE/Mageia stack I would assume that works as well. > But proprietary Oracle JDK rpm doesn't have this provides so it means > we'd still pull in additional jdk. Oh well.. I see a lot of hosts with the Oracle RPMs on there, so it seems better to omit rather than force someone to use --nodeps or double up, IMO. Cheers, Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter http://twitter.com/brettporter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
