Re: Cleanup in .orig.tar.gz or debian/rules?

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Florian Grandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Philipp, > >> I now ask myself, when and were should I replace those libraries: >> 1. Only in the final debian/jspwiki/ tree (but build with the original >> .jar files) >> 2. Each time during the debian/rules run >>

Re: Cleanup in .orig.tar.gz or debian/rules?

Hi Philipp, I now ask myself, when and were should I replace those libraries: 1. Only in the final debian/jspwiki/ tree (but build with the original .jar files) 2. Each time during the debian/rules run 3. Once in the .orig.tar.gz (the download is only availabe as .zip) I think Debian policy

Cleanup in .orig.tar.gz or debian/rules?

Hello! Please cc: me on replies, since I'm not subsribed to this list. I'm currently looking at JSPWiki, a wiki-system written in Java. Debian (and [K]Ubuntu) contains a very old version: 2.5.139 vs. 2.6.3. While trying to build a new package, I detected that JSPWiki contains a lot of third-parts

Re: Question concerning patched jars

Hi again, The JPackage people have the following solution: They include the JBoss patches into their source and produce two independent non-conflicting binary packages from the same source package: - one unpatched for general use (that goes into /usr/share/java) and - one for jbossas (which go

Question concerning patched jars

Hi everybody, in jbossas we have got lots of jars that are built from source by the JBoss people upstream with patches applied to them. So they are nearly the same as the ones we have in our own packages except for the patches which are needed for the jars to work with jbossas. The JPackage

Re: Apache Commons packaging question

Hi Manuel, Manuel Prinz schrieb: 2. The commons-math tarball ships three jars containing the class files, source files and documentation, respectively. Is it OK to just put them in the Debian package (as they are) or should I extract the source and rebuild a Debian source package from that? (The

Re: Apache Commons packaging question

Hi Eric, thanks for your answers! Am Mittwoch, den 16.07.2008, 15:39 +0200 schrieb Eric Lavarde - Debian: > Manuel Prinz said: > > 1. Other commons source packages seem to be renamed to libcommon-*-java. > > Do all commons packages do this? Is there a kind of agreement on this? > Yes. the lib*-ja

Questions about batik 1.7 update

Hi all, For some time I have been trying to package batik 1.7 for Ubuntu Intrepid.[1] In the process I have packaged it's dependency xml-commons-external.[2] I have done repackaging of upstream source in similar manner to how it was done for 1.6, with svn export from fop. But some doubts were dis

Re: Apache Commons packaging question

Hi Manuel, Manuel Prinz said: > Hi all, > > I thought about packaging the Apache Commons Math Library[1] which I use > regularly. I do have a some question though and would like to ask you > for your opinion on that: > > 1. Other commons source packages seem to be renamed to libcommon-*-java. > Do

Apache Commons packaging question

Hi all, I thought about packaging the Apache Commons Math Library[1] which I use regularly. I do have a some question though and would like to ask you for your opinion on that: 1. Other commons source packages seem to be renamed to libcommon-*-java. Do all commons packages do this? Is there a kin

Attn: Friend,

新しいメールアドレスをお知らせします新しいメールアドレス： [EMAIL PROTECTED] Attn: Friend, This is to notify you that your over due inheritance funds $15.5M approved,meanwhile, a woman Janet williams came to my office few days ago with a letter,claiming to be from you,do reconfirm to this office your full name and addre