RPM support update

[jon.vanalten at redhat.com]

----- "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
> specified).
> 
> Yes. See
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jigsaw/api/org/openjdk/jigsaw/JigsawVersionQuery.html
> and the code at
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jigsaw/jdk/file/dc6e9e87b14a/src/share/classes/org/openjdk/jigsaw/JigsawVersionQuery.java
> 
> The syntax would be
> 
> jigsaw.moduleinfo.requires = some.module @ >= 0.1 , something.else @ <
> 1.0.0.0.0.1-b17
> 
> cheers,
> 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