Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't care much if the package is named libjunit-java or junit, but
> I prefer to name application packages (binaries are applications) like
> the application itself.
Me too, so I guess the question changes into whether junit is an
application or a
Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't care much if the package is named libjunit-java or junit, but
> I prefer to name application packages (binaries are applications) like
> the application itself.
Me too, so I guess the question changes into whether junit is an
application or a
At Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:45:03 +0200,
Stefan Gybas wrote:
> I don't care much if the package is named libjunit-java or junit, but
> I prefer to name application packages (binaries are applications) like
> the application itself. It's just important that there's only one package
> containing both the
At Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:45:03 +0200,
Stefan Gybas wrote:
> I don't care much if the package is named libjunit-java or junit, but
> I prefer to name application packages (binaries are applications) like
> the application itself. It's just important that there's only one package
> containing both the
Bill Wohler wrote:
I see. By that same reasoning, you'd also put /lib/libc.so.6 in say,
fileutils? ;-)
No, but libc6 contains also some binaries because it makes no sense
to seperate the binaries from the library (each package would depend
on the other).
2. placing both the script, if any,
Bill Wohler wrote:
> I see. By that same reasoning, you'd also put /lib/libc.so.6 in say,
> fileutils? ;-)
No, but libc6 contains also some binaries because it makes no sense
to seperate the binaries from the library (each package would depend
on the other).
> 2. placing both the scrip
Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:13:30PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > Two packages are probably better. One junit for the program
> > which depends on libjunit-java which contains the jar.
>
> Please no! Do you want to put each single file in its own Debi
> I named junit-java because junit is java application.
> But some applications need junit as library.
> Should I use junit-java instead of junit?
What I have done with jython (which is similar; a program that is also
used as a library for java apps that want embedded scripting) is create a
"jyth
Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:13:30PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > Two packages are probably better. One junit for the program
> > which depends on libjunit-java which contains the jar.
>
> Please no! Do you want to put each single file in its own Deb
> I named junit-java because junit is java application.
> But some applications need junit as library.
> Should I use junit-java instead of junit?
What I have done with jython (which is similar; a program that is also
used as a library for java apps that want embedded scripting) is create a
"jyt
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:30:41PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:13:30PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > Two packages are probably better. One junit for the program
> > which depends on libjunit-java which contains the jar.
>
> Please no! Do you want to put each single
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:13:30PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Two packages are probably better. One junit for the program
> which depends on libjunit-java which contains the jar.
Please no! Do you want to put each single file in its own Debian
package? In your suggstion the junit package would
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 04:18:37PM +0900, Takashi Okamoto wrote:
> From: "Ola Lundqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > And there are a number of packages that does not have
> > the -java ending at all.
> >
> > junit
>
> I named junit-java because junit is java application.
> But some applications need
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:30:41PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:13:30PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > Two packages are probably better. One junit for the program
> > which depends on libjunit-java which contains the jar.
>
> Please no! Do you want to put each singl
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:13:30PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Two packages are probably better. One junit for the program
> which depends on libjunit-java which contains the jar.
Please no! Do you want to put each single file in its own Debian
package? In your suggstion the junit package woul
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 04:18:37PM +0900, Takashi Okamoto wrote:
> From: "Ola Lundqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > And there are a number of packages that does not have
> > the -java ending at all.
> >
> > junit
>
> I named junit-java because junit is java application.
> But some applications nee
From: "Ola Lundqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And there are a number of packages that does not have
> the -java ending at all.
>
> junit
I named junit-java because junit is java application.
But some applications need junit as library.
Should I use junit-java instead of junit?
Takashi Okamoto
From: "Ola Lundqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And there are a number of packages that does not have
> the -java ending at all.
>
> junit
I named junit-java because junit is java application.
But some applications need junit as library.
Should I use junit-java instead of junit?
Takashi Okamot
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:07:09PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
>
> > Stefan Gybas wrote:
> >
> > > Basically yes, but IMHO this should be the decision of the local admin
> > > and not of the package maintainer. How could he know ig his package
> > > contains
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
> Stefan Gybas wrote:
>
> > Basically yes, but IMHO this should be the decision of the local admin
> > and not of the package maintainer. How could he know ig his package
> > contains "standard" jars? This means that no package should automatically
> > put j
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:07:09PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
>
> > Stefan Gybas wrote:
> >
> > > Basically yes, but IMHO this should be the decision of the local admin
> > > and not of the package maintainer. How could he know ig his package
> > > contains
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
> Stefan Gybas wrote:
>
> > Basically yes, but IMHO this should be the decision of the local admin
> > and not of the package maintainer. How could he know ig his package
> > contains "standard" jars? This means that no package should automatically
> > put
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:51:10PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > Yes it bothers me too. What bothers me more is that someone (I
> > do not remember who) told me that I should name my package
> > libxalan2-java instead of lib-xalan2-java.
>
>
> This was probably me. I ha
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:51:10PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > Yes it bothers me too. What bothers me more is that someone (I
> > do not remember who) told me that I should name my package
> > libxalan2-java instead of lib-xalan2-java.
>
>
> This was probably me. I h
Stefan Gybas wrote:
Basically yes, but IMHO this should be the decision of the local admin
and not of the package maintainer. How could he know ig his package
contains "standard" jars? This means that no package should automatically
put jars or symlinks there. This would be /etc/java/default-classp
Ben Burton wrote:
- *All* jars be placed in the optional jar directory, this being
/usr/share/java as it is now.
Ok. We could still discuss if application-specific JARs, e.g. for Tomcat
the Jasper JSP engine, should be put there or in /usr/share/app/lib/
as probably nobody ever wants to include th
> A different story is the naming of JARs inside the package. It might make
> sense to include the version there, so instead of
> /usr/share/java/xerces.jar I could use /usr/share/java/xerces-1.4.1.jar
> and create a symlink or using alternatives. But then some suggestions
> like automatically inc
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Yes it bothers me too. What bothers me more is that someone (I
do not remember who) told me that I should name my package
libxalan2-java instead of lib-xalan2-java.
This was probably me. I had a long discussion with Stephane Bortzmeyer
(original author of the Java policy) abou
Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Basically yes, but IMHO this should be the decision of the local admin
> and not of the package maintainer. How could he know ig his package
> contains "standard" jars? This means that no package should automatically
> put jars or symlinks there. This would be /etc/java/defa
Ben Burton wrote:
> - *All* jars be placed in the optional jar directory, this being
> /usr/share/java as it is now.
Ok. We could still discuss if application-specific JARs, e.g. for Tomcat
the Jasper JSP engine, should be put there or in /usr/share/app/lib/
as probably nobody ever wants to inc
> A different story is the naming of JARs inside the package. It might make
> sense to include the version there, so instead of
> /usr/share/java/xerces.jar I could use /usr/share/java/xerces-1.4.1.jar
> and create a symlink or using alternatives. But then some suggestions
> like automatically in
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Yes it bothers me too. What bothers me more is that someone (I
> do not remember who) told me that I should name my package
> libxalan2-java instead of lib-xalan2-java.
This was probably me. I had a long discussion with Stephane Bortzmeyer
(original author of the Java pol
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 09:33:54PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:00, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Ok. Lets standardize on the libfoo[version]-java names.
>
> I really like to comment that i do not think w
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 09:33:54PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:00, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Ok. Lets standardize on the libfoo[version]-java names.
>
> I really like to comment that i do not think
On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:00, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> Ok. Lets standardize on the libfoo[version]-java names.
I really like to comment that i do not think we should punish those
who complied to the current Java policy, and use
lib-f
On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:00, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> Ok. Lets standardize on the libfoo[version]-java names.
I really like to comment that i do not think we should punish those
who complied to the current Java policy, and use
lib-
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Well we have both ways in debian now. Should we allow both but prefer
> > one?
>
> Seeing as we're moving to enforce a single consistent standard, I'm
> personally happier if we only allow one.
Consistency is good. :)
> Looking
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Well we have both ways in debian now. Should we allow both but prefer
> > one?
>
> Seeing as we're moving to enforce a single consistent standard, I'm
> personally happier if we only allow one.
Consistency is good. :)
> Looking
> Well we have both ways in debian now. Should we allow both but prefer
> one?
Seeing as we're moving to enforce a single consistent standard, I'm
personally happier if we only allow one.
Looking through what the approximate list of all available java packages
(see first post to this thread) I f
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 04:42:14PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > I suggest that we name the packages libfoo-java or in some
> > cases libfoo-version-java if that are necessary.
> >
> > Is that ok if I change the policy in that way?
>
> Fine in general with me, although I have a question about ve
> Well we have both ways in debian now. Should we allow both but prefer
> one?
Seeing as we're moving to enforce a single consistent standard, I'm
personally happier if we only allow one.
Looking through what the approximate list of all available java packages
(see first post to this thread) I
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 04:42:14PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > I suggest that we name the packages libfoo-java or in some
> > cases libfoo-version-java if that are necessary.
> >
> > Is that ok if I change the policy in that way?
>
> Fine in general with me, although I have a question about v
> I suggest that we name the packages libfoo-java or in some
> cases libfoo-version-java if that are necessary.
>
> Is that ok if I change the policy in that way?
Fine in general with me, although I have a question about versions. Do we
want libfoo-version-java or libfooversion-java? To me a pa
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 12:29:35PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
> lib-XXX-java."
>
> Below we see an approximate list of all java library packages available in
> debian. One observes that more than *half* of them are name
On Saturday 15 September 2001 19:29, Ben Burton wrote:
> Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
> lib-XXX-java."
>
> Below we see an approximate list of all java library packages available in
> debian. One observes that more than *half* of them are named
> "libX
> I suggest that we name the packages libfoo-java or in some
> cases libfoo-version-java if that are necessary.
>
> Is that ok if I change the policy in that way?
Fine in general with me, although I have a question about versions. Do we
want libfoo-version-java or libfooversion-java? To me a p
> > Does this bother anyone else but me?
>
> Yes, it does, but not for the same reason.
Well, yes for the same reason, which is lack of adherence to a tidy
convention. If that convention can spread in general across libraries for
interpreted languages then all the better.
In which case I'm all
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 12:29:35PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
> lib-XXX-java."
>
> Below we see an approximate list of all java library packages available in
> debian. One observes that more than *half* of them are nam
Sorry for the large cc, but it is about time that debian had a unified policy
on these package names.
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
> lib-XXX-java."
I think the java policy is wrong. Why should java be any
Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
lib-XXX-java."
Below we see an approximate list of all java library packages available in
debian. One observes that more than *half* of them are named
"libXXX-java"
instead of "lib-XXX-java". We even see libpgjava with n
On Saturday 15 September 2001 19:29, Ben Burton wrote:
> Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
> lib-XXX-java."
>
> Below we see an approximate list of all java library packages available in
> debian. One observes that more than *half* of them are named
> "lib
> > Does this bother anyone else but me?
>
> Yes, it does, but not for the same reason.
Well, yes for the same reason, which is lack of adherence to a tidy
convention. If that convention can spread in general across libraries for
interpreted languages then all the better.
In which case I'm all
Sorry for the large cc, but it is about time that debian had a unified policy
on these package names.
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
> lib-XXX-java."
I think the java policy is wrong. Why should java be any
Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
lib-XXX-java."
Below we see an approximate list of all java library packages available in
debian. One observes that more than *half* of them are named
"libXXX-java"
instead of "lib-XXX-java". We even see libpgjava with
54 matches
Mail list logo
