Re: Updating Jakarta Commons packages
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:11:22 -0400,
Barry Hawkins <barry@bytemason.org> wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>> Sat, 23 Apr 2005 18:34:23 -0400,
>> Barry Hawkins <barry@bytemason.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>>The Commons Collections package is one that is currently inconsistent,
>>>and some others are similar, so I'd like to sort that out that then
>>>roll forward and get things all squared away. With the exception of
>>>dropping "lib" from the source package, does the reorganization of the
>>>Commons Collections packaging as outlined in the original post suit
>>>you?
>>
>> Except the lib prefix, what reorganisation do you plan? Moving
>> everything to cdbs? YES! Add a debian/watch file? YES! Change the
>> Maintainer to pkg-java-maintainers? YES!
> [...]
> libcommons-collections-java binary package becomes:
> libcommons-collections2-java
> libcommons-collections2-java-doc
ok, that's bad :-p
> libcommons-collections3-java binary package becomes:
> libcommons-collections3-java
> libcommons-collections3-java-doc
>
> Both 2 and 3 currently use CDBS, and 2 has Debian Java Maintainers as
> the maintainer.
I think Takashi will agree moving c-coll3 to pkg-java-maintainers.
> [...]
>> About the lib prefix, I think we need a deeper investigation because
>> it's not needed to remove the lib prefix and then add it back! ;-)
> [...]
> Absolutely. As I mentioned, I am not strongly committed to the idea of
> removing that prefix from the source packages, so the feedback I am
> getting from you guys really helps to flesh that out. If most of us
> find the lib prefix for source and binary packages of Java libraries
> most intuitive, that's OK with me.
I think we should re-discuss that maybe.
Cheers,
- --
.''`.
: :' :rnaud
`. `'
`-
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCbARI4vzFZu62tMIRArwmAKCOnNXRD/Crad5L8K/1va0iI00xKACgpeoa
KPXuSgl0whZcufpTVAX3dfs=
=fYQK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: