Re: [Fwd: Re: [architecture] Re: JPackages and ObjectWeb]
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le dim, 01/02/2004 à 16:24 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> > Le dim, 01/02/2004 à 16:15 +0100, Jan Schulz a écrit :
> > > Hallo Nicolas,
> > >
> > > * Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > >face the same problems and wish for more or less the same
> > > > things :
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Would you mind adding that to the wiki? Seems like a nice thing
> > > to have there :)
> >
> > Ok
> > (I still owe you a clarification on ant/tomcat symlinking, but
> > that's way more subtle and I still didn't found the time to
> > produce a sensical writup;(
>
> I'm done with this. The result is available at:
>
> http://java.debian.net/index.php/What%20is%20required%20from%20upst
>ream
>
> I'm rather proud of myself since I merged the full JPP document, my
> mail, added a few ideas and corrected (a bit) the result.
Thanks for these guidelines. I have a few questions:
- when you say "provide this", "do not include that", ... do you speak
of the project CVS repository, or of "packages" built from this
repository (in the sense of sourceforge packages)?
- if you speak of packages built from the CVS, is it ok to include
external jars in the CVS, but not in the source package?
- what about tests, examples and documentation? They are all in the
CVS, but they can be included in the source package, or in separate
packages. What is preferred? And how should be handled the jar files
that are not needed to build or run the application/library itself,
but that are needed to run the tests or the examples?
- is it a good idea to include ant tasks to build debian or rpm
packages, in addition to the source package, in the CVS? Or do you
prefer to keep the developper and packager roles fully separated?
Eric Bruneton
Reply to: