Re: merging back libfoo-java and libfoo-jni

[Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sat, 6 Nov 2004 05:05:04 +0100, 
Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es> wrote: 

> [Please CC me on replies, M-F-T set.]
>
> hi,

Yo!

>   I'm seeking some advice from the Java maintainers as to what would the
>   best to do in the situation I'll expose.
>
>   currently, kdebindings creates 6 Java library packages:
>   lib{dcop,qt,kde}3-{jni,java}. the Java policy (section 2.4, last
>   paragraph) states that
>
>     "There may be situations, such as with very small packages, where it
>     is better to bundle the Java code and the native code together into
>     a single package."
>
>   I think that this set of packages really suit that situation (see the
>   attached list of files), and I'd create only 3 packages if I were to
>   create them from scratch.

I personally prefer to have separated packages so only the native part
is build each time. Maybe another d-j can say something else.

>   the thing is that they already exist split in the archive, so what I'm
>   asking is, specifically: (a) would you advice against merging them
>   back now? and (b) would you recommend doing so?

I wouldn't merge. But if you wanna do it, you can add a Provides field
and make your package conflict with old versions.

Package: a
Replaces: b
Conflicts: b

http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html

Cheers,

- -- 
  .''`. 
 : :' :rnaud
 `. `'  
   `-    
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBkIY24vzFZu62tMIRAiCAAJ97adfIwtgqxXYN+eNe7AWPi/lPSgCcD80e
+Ec+/mZMHEqgH0EREhnIrEE=
=C7Ev
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----