Hey Marko,
In my experience, there are a few common reasons why libraries do not end
up in Debian:
1. Lack of time from maintainers: Debian is largely a volunteer effort, and
as a result, sometimes things don't end up in Debian simply because people
lack the time to package it. You can help here
Removing alpn support impacts performance since an additional handshake is
necessary at the application (http) level. Is it possible to instead patch
the source to include the needed support class? It can then be removed when
Java 9 becomes the default.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 12:38 Markus Koschany
Hey everyone,
Awhile back, there was a question on the Mechanical Sympathy mailing list
(if you haven't heard of it before, it's a group for discussing development
of high-performance programs, mainly focussing on Java).
Gil Tene (CTO and Co-Founder of Azul Systems) provided a critical
comparison
Emmanuel,
Disclaimer: I haven't done any work on Debian Java, so my opinion isn't
here isn't worth anything. :-)
If I understand correctly, the difference between the profiles is simply
the number of Java packages available at runtime [0].
Whether the compact1 profile is worth packaging despite
; proper java library package name. I was worried about it not being
> discoverable if I didn't put the sbbi-upnplib source package name.
>
> Given that, do you still think it should be renamed? I don't mind either way.
>
> ~Scott
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Jonatha
Hey Scott,
I don't presume to be an expert here, but I wanted to mention that the
package name specified in your ITP does not match the usual
conventions for libraries in Debian, nor for Java libraries
specifically:
"Java libraries packages must be named libXXX[version]-java (without
the brackets
6 matches
Mail list logo
