From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add xz-java. Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:04:21 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87y48yxrew.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpoh1sfz.fsf@gnu.org> <874mbhd05y.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8kg10zb.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55679) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1avLOa-0001ia-Uz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 05:04:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1avLOX-00038h-Kk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 05:04:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87a8kg10zb.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Roel Janssen Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Roel Janssen writes: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >> Hi Roel, >> >>> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >>> >>>> Roel Janssen writes: >>>> >>>>> One minor detail is the filename of the jar. I renamed it to >>>>> "xz-1.5.jar", which I think is the "standard" file naming scheme fo= r our >>>>> Java packages. >>>> >>>> I think it=E2=80=99s a bit ugly because we have the version number i= n the target >>>> directory already, but I realise that this is how the jar is origina= lly >>>> named, so I think that=E2=80=99s okay. >>> >>> The jar is originally named "xz.jar". I thought other Java packages >>> included the version number in the filename, so I just followed this >>> practice. >>> >>> Either "xz.jar" or "xz-1.5.jar" is fine with me. >>> >>>> However, we should not hardcode the version string. Instead we shou= ld >>>> do something like this (untested): >>>> >>>> #:jar-name ,(string-append "xz-" version ".jar") >>>> >>>> What do you think? If this works for you I=E2=80=99ll commit your p= atch with >>>> this change. >>> >>> I've just tested it and it works. Since you're better at making a >>> stylistic decision, I want to leave it up to you whether you want to >>> append the version number or not. Both ways are fine with me. >> >> I forgot to reply to this message and I no longer remember what we >> should do. Do you have an updated patch for =E2=80=9Cjava-xz=E2=80=9D= (with or without >> version number)? > > Yes, here it is. So, I renamed it to "java-xz" due to the naming > conventions. I applied your suggestion of making the version a variabl= e > in the #:jar-name field. Thank you! I pushed it to master. ~~ Ricardo