'debian' version for libclojure-java?

2017-08-14 Thread Tom Marble
All: I found that in creating a Java package that depends on Clojure [0] I had to patch to a specific version [1]. I'm wondering if it would be better to depend on 'clojure' (or 'libclojure-java') as unversioned? There *is* a case where Debian developers may want to have the next (as yet unrele

Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java

2017-08-14 Thread Markus Koschany
Am 12.08.2017 um 17:02 schrieb tony mancill: [...] > I spoke with Markus yesterday about libimglib2-java and so will wait to > hear back from him before starting on that one. Again *thank you* for > your patience, and for your contribution to Debian! > Hi, I have just reviewed libimglib2-java a

Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java

2017-08-14 Thread Ghislain Vaillant
On 14/08/17 21:11, Markus Koschany wrote: Am 12.08.2017 um 17:02 schrieb tony mancill: [...] I spoke with Markus yesterday about libimglib2-java and so will wait to hear back from him before starting on that one. Again *thank you* for your patience, and for your contribution to Debian! Hi,

Re: 'debian' version for libclojure-java?

2017-08-14 Thread Markus Koschany
Hey Tom, Am 14.08.2017 um 20:24 schrieb Tom Marble: > > All: > > I found that in creating a Java package that depends on Clojure [0] > I had to patch to a specific version [1]. I'm a bit confused here. When we worked on this package, didn't we change the version to 1.8.x instead of 1.8.0 ? The

Re: RFS for libimglib2-java and libparsington-java

2017-08-14 Thread Markus Koschany
Am 14.08.2017 um 22:45 schrieb Ghislain Vaillant: > > > On 14/08/17 21:11, Markus Koschany wrote: > >> 2. I saw the no-doc build profile annotations in debian/control. Is that >> something that you specifically need for libimglib2-java or is there >> another reason? > > See > https://www.debian.

Re: Notes from the DebConf 17 Java BOF

2017-08-14 Thread Markus Koschany
Am 12.08.2017 um 00:06 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Thank you for the summary Tom. How many people attended the BOF? > > On 08/09/2017 02:50 AM, Tom Marble wrote: > >> 1. Making openjdk-9 the default for buster >>- Yes we should try to do this. >>- We will gain some fixes for reproducible bu

Re: 'debian' version for libclojure-java?

2017-08-14 Thread Tom Marble
Markus Koschany writes: > I'm a bit confused here. When we worked on this package, didn't we > change the version to 1.8.x instead of 1.8.0 ? The former is correct > because new package versions like 1.8.1, 1.8.2, etc. won't break your > reverse-dependencies every time you package a new version of