Marcus Better <marcus <at> better.se> writes: > > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > It's a good idea to remove generated javadoc and jar files and classes. > > > > Very much so. Unless you build from source, you have no way to know > > that the binaries correspond to that source code. You can't even > > guarantee that you're not violating the GPL, which requires you to > > provide source code on demand. > > That may be a valid argument, but there are more troubling cases. For > instance we ship a lot of packages that build with Maven, but since we > don't have Maven in Debian, we use the included, pre-generated, Ant build > file instead. What should we do about those? >
I'd suggest looking at whatever solution JPackage came up with, as well. I believe they (i.e. Ralph Apel) figured out how to package it in a way that it uses the jars in the packaging system rather than whatever the default is (network from ibiblio, I think), but I'm not sure. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
