> So ... I'm CCing this to the debian-java list with a question: is it > reasonable to name a package 'libsvn-java' if the jar file it ships is > named svn-javahl.jar? I really don't like 'libsvn-javahl-java' as a > name (reminds me of 'python-pyvorbis'), but if policy requires it, > we'll use it.
While I posted it in my original bug report, I only now fully parsed the second paragraph quoted from java policy, section 2.4: "Their classes must be in jar archive(s) in the directory /usr/share/java, with the name packagename[-extraname]-fullversion.jar. The extraname is optional and used internally within the package to separate the different jars provided by the package. The fullversion is the version of that jar file. In some cases that is not the same as the package version." If I interpret this correctly in your case you could use svn as the package name, and javahl as the extraname. In a way this seems reasonable as the -javahl is there to distinguish from the non-high-level bindings that have not yet materialized, but which could one day. This would yield the Debian package name libsvn-java, which does appear better than the alternatives, in my opinion. Any objections to making this change? Charles -- Big mistake Many make Rely on horn Instead of Brake Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1945/big_mistake
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
