-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:36:45 -0400,
Barry Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian Java Community,
> Some of our Jakarta Commons packages need updating, and in the
> course of discussing this on IRC at #debian-java, some issues have come
> up. To illustrate these issues, I will use the example of our packaging
> of Jakarta Commons Collections, a library in fairly wide use within Java
> applications. I have two general recommendations, then a specific
> proposal for Commons Collections that actually involves me doing work. 8^)
>
> General Recommendations
> 1. Use version numbers almost always. Our current policy[0] shows this
> as optional, but I believe it should be more the standard we follow by
> default. Java libraries, in this case Jakarta Commons libraries, are
> almost always vulnerable to incompatibilities between major versions.
> Seasoned Ant users and Maven as a whole[1] (thanks Trygve LaugstÃl) have
> chosen versioned .jar files to address this.
I think this is already the case, isn't it? I'm thinking about
libjdom{,0,1}-java, libcommons-collections{,2,3}-java.
> 2. Do not prefix the source package with "lib". Libraries, at least
> most of the ones worth packaging, almost always ship their docs in the
> tarballs. Having a source package whose name matches the binary package
> for the library itself loosely implies that is all it's for. Since some
> libraries also ship with examples and testing frameworks, this can
> become even more confusing, as can be seen in the one bug for
> libcommons-collections3-java[3].
I don't think the bug report is an argument against the lib prefix. I do
prefere that source package are named like the lib binary they generate,
I think it's less confusing when you're looking for a bug report or for
a package to have the same name when it's possible (only one binary
generated by the source package).
Maybe we also can change the naming scheme in our policy because I don't
think the library versus application is very relevant in java:
everything is a library in java (or could be).
I think we need to make it coherent and the current situation is good
for me (source package prefixed by lib). Don't forget we are not a lot
of DD to upload java packages at the moment and we are trying to make a
release! ;-) I also think there are things more important then the
change of scheme in the source package naming. But we can discuss it has
I've just said.
> Jakarta Commons as an Example
> Below I have outlined the current source packages and their
> corresponding binary packages, followed by a proposed reorganization for
> Jakarta Commons Collections 2.1.1 and 3.1. Please comment on these
> suggested approaches. I would like to implement this soon.
[...]
To prefix the source with lib was my idea (probably not the best ;-))
and it's been changed after Woody (if I recall), that's why you have
some differences between packages in Woody and in Sarge/Etch|Sid.
Let's start the dance of name proposals for source (and, or binary)
packages.
Cheers,
- --
.''`.
: :' :rnaud
`. `'
`-
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCasSi4vzFZu62tMIRAhwoAJ9QYf8PLYvN/UZJZnjZl+AeE7vKaQCeLhv4
iMDZw28yKdIg2YTgf32hGpg=
=bZRa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
