Re: RFC: libescher
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:14:56PM +0200, Robert Schuster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > [I replyed from pkg-java-maintainers to debian-java because I prefer
> > pkg-java-maintainers's list to be only for bug reports]
>
> I will use debian-java for packaging diffs from now on. :)
>
> >>>The escher source archive (0.2.3) is a bit odd. It contains no separate source
> >>>and has all the class files in it. I tried to fix that in the clean rule. Hope
> >>>that makes sense.
> > That's the way to go.
>
> Another problem is that the root for the source files is the archive's root
> itself. In other words: It has no separate source folder. Out of knowledge I
> fixed that in the clean rule, too. However that makes the diff pretty big and it
> may be more useful to fix that problem in some kind of compilation-preparation
> step (It is just mkdir src; mv gnu src;)
>
> >>>+Build-Depends: cdbs, debhelper (>= 4.1.0), java-gcj-compat-dev, ant
> >>>+Standards-Version: 3.6.2
> >
> >
> > Build-Depends: cdbs, debhelper (>= 4.1.0)
> > Build-Depends-Indep: java-gcj-compat-dev, ant
> > Standards-Version: 3.7.2
> >
> > [...]
> Fixed!
>
> >>>+DEB_JARS := \
> >>>+ ant-launcher
> >
> >
> > I don't think it's needed anymore.
> I am afraid I get NoClassDefFoundErrors without that. However I am building the
> package on an Ubuntu system. Hope that isnt to much of a problem...?
That's an Ubuntu problem for not merging our patches to CDBS. In Debian
its not needed and it should not be in the debian/rules file. Ubuntu
should be fixed instead.
Cheers,
Michael
--
http://www.worldforge.org/
Reply to: