Hi, Daniel Pocock said: >> B. I doubt that such a badly named package would be of enough interest / >> quality for Debian packaging (but I might be wrong, I don't know any >> example) > > There are examples like this. It has been argued by some developers > that to compile using some toolchains (e.g. Blackberry builds done on > Windows), they have to shorten the package names, otherwise they end up > with filenames that are too long And who are we, packagers, to decide that this argument is wrong? And again, perfect example: if we change the package name on Debian, programs built on Debian wouldn't work on Windows and vice versa, and possibly neither on Blackberry which would make the principle of a toolchain quite absurd, wouldn't it. Wonderful result for a language supposedly portable...
> > Having this in Debian policy would help underline best practice and show > people evidence why they shouldn't deviate from it. I quickly checked other Debian language policies (Perl, Python) and couldn't anything even similar to this proposal, which confirms me in my opinion that policies are (rightly IMHO) about packaging not about programming best practices. > >> Conclusion: I vote against + close the bug. > > Can you leave the bug open so other people can comment for now? It is > not RC after all Sure, I meant to say that I vote to close the bug. Unless someone disagrees, I would suggest to leave it open until next week (gives one more week-end for people to react) and then close it (if votes continue to go in the same direction, of course). Cheers, Eric -- You don't need to CC me on debian-java, debian-mentors and pkg-java-maintainers. Please CC me on other Debian lists. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/26490.15.195.185.83.1358323544.squir...@my.bawue.net
