-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> 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.
The current situation as outlined in the lower half of the original post
for both source and binary beyond Woody is:
libcommons-collections-java
libcommons-collections3-java
(currently no libcommons-collections*-java-doc beyond 1.0)
[...]
> 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.
[...]
As long as we firm up the convention and it is fairly intuitive, I am
fine with whatever the group prefers. As you point out, there are not
that many DDs working on this, so we can't get to philosophical or
bureaucratic about it. The Commons Collections package is one that is
currently inconsistent, and some others are similar, so I'd like to sort
that out that then roll forward and get things all squared away. With
the exception of dropping "lib" from the source package, does the
reorganization of the Commons Collections packaging as outlined in the
original post suit you? Thanks for taking the time to evaluate this and
provide feedback.
Regards,
- --
Barry Hawkins
All Things Computed
site: www.alltc.com
weblog: www.yepthatsme.com
Registered Linux User #368650
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCas1uHuKcDICy0QoRAitqAKDSO0EfuAVomwTHoBzD++kqc52tPgCgmcxX
cRIULtBcaratiHCGqu8BzR0=
=LgHZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
