Bug#698164: mandate unique package names in Debian Java policy
On 14/01/13 21:16, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 14/01/13 19:48, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> A few projects exist without following this convention, and sooner or
>> later somebody may try to package one of them.
>>
>> According to the Java Language Specification, using a domain name is a
>> "suggested convention" and not a mandatory obligation. Nonetheless, in
>> an environment such as Debian where we have to keep many different
>> packages concurrently on a single system, I would contend that we should
>> mandate the use of this "suggestion"
>> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-6.html#d5e6504
>
> The package domain is a decision of upstream, not of the packager, hence
> I don't think that such recommendation has its place in the Java policy:
> 1. it doesn't create any collision in terms of packaging
> 2. it might create collision in terms of using two such libraries BUT
> a. developers using two such libraries have to cope with this issue
> also outside of Debian anyway
> b. and in terms of portability, any developer using one of both
> libraries would thank us (irony!) if we'd change the package name as it
> would force them to change their import statements only for Debian
More likely upstream developers will be put under more pressure to
follow best practice, and the Debian packagers won't be stuck converting
stuff manually
> This said, we can put a suggestion in the Java Policy to influence
> upstream to fix their package naming convention, but:
> A. it's the same as for any other upstream "bug", so why document the
> obvious?
Because it is a particular issue in Java, and the JLS leaves it at our
discretion by calling it a "suggested" strategy.
> B. I doubt that such a badly named package would be of enough interest /
> quality for Debian packaging (but I might be wrong, I don't know any
> example)
There are examples like this. It has been argued by some developers
that to compile using some toolchains (e.g. Blackberry builds done on
Windows), they have to shorten the package names, otherwise they end up
with filenames that are too long
Having this in Debian policy would help underline best practice and show
people evidence why they shouldn't deviate from it.
> Conclusion: I vote against + close the bug.
Can you leave the bug open so other people can comment for now? It is
not RC after all
Reply to: