On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> wrote: > On a related note, would it make sense to deploy something like "shlibs" > files for Java? I have experimented with adding "symbols" files in the > past and they tend to be rather large if every symbol must be covered. > Though if we reduce the granularity from symbol level to "class" or > (Java's) package level it might be more feasible.
For those reading planet, a-c-c and dh have been integrated: http://blog.surgut.co.uk/2013/04/abi-compliance-checker-dh-cdbs.html Similar work with japi-compliance-checker could be done :) I am not a java expert clearly but I fear that maintaining those symbols will be difficult, maybe just as difficult as C++ symbols are (think: java generics). Some low level packages (with large rdep) could use some kind of symbols to avoid nasty situation [*], but I would not enforce that to all java packages. 2cts -M [*] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2012/04/msg00043.html -- 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/ca+7wuszn2fy2fab1tnwkdgy2utxkzo9wozebjvbv2x7h4h1...@mail.gmail.com
