On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:23:53 -0700, Ludovico Cavedon wrote: > Ciao Davide,
*cough* David senza "e" finale :D *cough* > I also a have basic package ready, but I still have to prepare the > manpage for the jtb command, fill the copyright file and add a maven pom > file. I have a manpage ready, attaching it to this bugreport. > Moreover it is not clear to me which version is the right one to package: > On [1] the latest version is 1.3.2, from 2005, probably no longer > maintained. > Looks like that [2] took over development of jtb, distributing version > 1.4.3.2. Ok, I didn't know about the eclipse fork of jtb. > So I would be inclined to distribute the latter. Yes, I agree. > However the only reason I am packaging jtb is beacuse it is used by > javacc-maven-plugin, which actually use 1.3.2. Therefore I need to make > sure that it works with 1.4.3.2. > > The only reason I want to package jtb is because it is a chain > dependency of htmlunit, and I am not java-involved :). Ah :) <sarcasm>Where's the pkg-java team, in all this? :)</sarcasm> (yes, I need javacc-maven-plugin too, which is blocking one RFP from me, which blocks another ITP from me, blocking yet-another-ITP from me, blocking the original bug in my package. Madness.) > Anyway, if you (or anybody else reading this ITP) want to take-over or > co-maintain jtb, you are welcome! I can start pushing the changes to > git.debian.org It's a small package (at least the 1.3.2 one, I don't know anything about Eclipse), so I believe co-maintainance is not necessary. OTOH, someone from pkg-java should really take it. > I am planning to to some more work on it this weekend and hopefully get > it uploaded... That's great! David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
jtb.1
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
