Am Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:39:28 +0200 schrieb Damien Raude-Morvan <draz...@drazzib.com>:
> Hi Matthias, > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:39:37 +0200, Matthias Schmitz > <matth...@sigxcpu.org> > wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "animal-sniffer-parent". > > > > * Package name : animal-sniffer-parent > > Version : 1.6-1 > > Upstream Author : Kohsuke Kawaguchi, codehaus.org, Stephen > > Connolly > > * URL : http://mojo.codehaus.org/animal-sniffer/ > > * License : MIT License > > Section : java > [...] > > My motivation for maintaining this package is: > > I need thie package as dependency for the sonatype-aether library > > (which is a maven3 dependency). > > I'll check your package during this week-end. > > Two comments to start : > - on source package name: I don't think we should name it with a > "-parent" suffix ("-parent" imply for me that only parent POM is > included) first i named it only "animal-sniffer" but upstreams svn tag name is animal-sniffer-parent-1.6 so the created orig tarball was named animal-sniffer-parent_1.6.... and i renamed the source package :-). > - binary packages count: I don't know if its really necessary to split > packages that much. Is there really a big number of dependencies ? First i tried to package only the animal-sniffer.jar with a single source / binary package but this needs the java-boot-classpath-detector and i start another single source / binary package. But this seems wrong because it comes both from the same source and so this bigger package was created. Should i melt all together in one binary package? It seems a neat idea to create a single binary package for every sub module (The jar, the Maven plugin, the Ant task and so on). best regards, Matthias
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
