RPM support update
jon.vanalten at redhat.com
jon.vanalten at redhat.com
Thu Oct 29 09:44:37 PDT 2009
----- "Dalibor Topic" <Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM> wrote:
> jon.vanalten at redhat.com wrote:
> > ----- "Dalibor Topic" <Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM> wrote:
> > I agree with the one-liner requires. I wonder if the same theory
> can be applied to the name/version lines too? ie:
> > jigsaw.moduleinfo.id.name = org.openjdk.jigsaw.test.hello @ 1.0
> Sounds good - I'd change that to
> jigsaw.moduleinfo.id = org.openjdk.jigsaw.test.hello @ 1.0
> as that's a string representation of the id (more then a name ;).
That does seem rational ;)
Somewhat related question: logically, do we consider a module to "provide" itself? Or will the moduleinfo also list it's own name/version as a "provides" explicitly?
> > A couple of other questions, then. I wonder what the "#" in j.m.r.#
> is needed for.
> > I can see if the version info was split off to a separate line, the
> number would
> > be needed to match the requires.name with requires.version. But
> with it all on one
> > line, is this necessary?
> There can be multiple (or no) required dependences for a module, so we
> need a
> way to represent a set of them. Same holds for provides and permits.
> One way to do it is to introduce a new 'assignment' for
> each member of such set, as done in the previous example.
> On the other hand, we can (of course! ;) represent a set using a
> single line,
> instead - we just need to introduce a delimiter character, for example
> So the prior example changes to
> jigsaw.moduleinfo.requires = jdk.base @ 7-ea , something.else @ 0.4
> Would that work better for your needs?
Ah, I was not really thinking in terms of "assignment" in the "j.m.r = blah" lines. I was thinking more in terms of j.m.r as a resource type (rather than a variable to be assigned), and each of the lines adds to the set of such resources (rather than replacing the existing assignment). I don't have a problem with the numbers, if you think it makes things more clear. In terms of working better for our needs, I think it would be easier to keep each requires/provides on its own line (with or without numbering).
Where would dependence modifiers come in here?
> > Finally, is there the possibility of something like this:
> > j.m.r >= jdk.base @ 7-ea
> > (ie requiring some version greater than or equal to the version
> Yes. See
> and the code at
> The syntax would be
> jigsaw.moduleinfo.requires = some.module @ >= 0.1 , something.else @ <
> dalibor topic
> Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738
> Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim
> Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192
> Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net
> D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
More information about the jigsaw-dev