Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-23 Thread Miguel Landaeta
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Markus Koschany wrote: > > I think we can drop lynx from Build-Depends since it is commented out > anyway and I would remove Thorsten Werner from Uploaders. I agree, this important package for the team (and the project) should have an up-to-date list of Uploaders. I guess Emm

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-23 Thread Markus Koschany
Am 23.09.2015 um 09:53 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > I pushed the java-policy package on Alioth [1], reviews are welcome. > I'll remove the policy from java-common once the java-policy package is > in unstable. I think we can drop lynx from Build-Depends since it is commented out anyway and I would re

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-23 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
I pushed the java-policy package on Alioth [1], reviews are welcome. I'll remove the policy from java-common once the java-policy package is in unstable. Emmanuel Bourg [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/java-policy.git

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Markus Koschany
Am 22.09.2015 um 17:55 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 22/09/2015 17:32, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : [...] >> Can’t you get it merged into the normal debian-policy package? > > Good question, and that would probably close #395374, but I'm unsure > about the implications of such a move. Will the Java Te

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 22/09/2015 13:49, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : > It’s 56K installed, the overhead is probably too big. To be exact, it's 172K with the .ps .txt and .xml versions in /usr/share/doc/java-common, and 260K if you include the FAQ. Emmanuel Bourg

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > > Can’t you get it merged into the normal debian-policy package? > > Good question, and that would probably close #395374, but I'm unsure > about the implications of such a move. Will the Java Team be able to > easily amend the Java policy if it's tied

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 22/09/2015 17:32, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : > Hmm. But in that case you also must split the source package. > Just saying. Yes, that's indeed my intent. > Can’t you get it merged into the normal debian-policy package? Good question, and that would probably close #395374, but I'm unsure abou

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, tony wrote: > in the archive. We may want to iterate over policy frequently, and do > so without triggering upgrades for every installed copy of java-common. Hmm. But in that case you also must split the source package. Just saying. Can’t you get it merged into the normal d

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 22/09/2015 17:13, tony a écrit : > It would also be nice if the policy package was named something > obvious, like java-policy. :) Actually I was thinking about something like "somewhat-normative-best-practices-collection-for-java-packages", but your suggestion is shorter :) Emmanuel

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread tony
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:59:23PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 22/09/2015 16:44, Markus Koschany a écrit : > > > I agree with Thorsten that this would imply a packaging overhead for > > only a little gain. Although I think that splitting the documentation > > would be cleaner, it is probably

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 22/09/2015 16:44, Markus Koschany a écrit : > I agree with Thorsten that this would imply a packaging overhead for > only a little gain. Although I think that splitting the documentation > would be cleaner, it is probably not worth the effort for a few KB. No > strong preferences from my side t

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Markus Koschany
Am 22.09.2015 um 13:02 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: [...] > What do you think? I agree with Thorsten that this would imply a packaging overhead for only a little gain. Although I think that splitting the documentation would be cleaner, it is probably not worth the effort for a few KB. No strong prefere

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Jan Henke
Am 22.09.2015 um 13:02 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Hi all, > > The src:java-common package currently contains: > - the default-jre/jdk meta packages defining the default Java per > architecture > - the update-java-alternatives mechanism > - the packaging policy for Java packages > - the Java FAQ > >

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > What do you think? It’s 56K installed, the overhead is probably too big. bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT

Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Hi all, The src:java-common package currently contains: - the default-jre/jdk meta packages defining the default Java per architecture - the update-java-alternatives mechanism - the packaging policy for Java packages - the Java FAQ Including the Java policy in java-common is a bit odd, it means J