Re: naming library packages
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
[...]
>> Another possibility is one package where you split the jar files:
>>
>> yourlib-commons.jar
>> yourlib-j5se.jar
>> yourlib-j2se1.4.jar
>
> there's not much common code, or rather, there are small differences
> between most of the classes. So you would have libdbus-j5se.jar or
> libdbus-j2se1.4.jar.
>
> This was my original question, given I want to do this what is the best
> way: 2 packages, 1 package 2 versions, 1 package 2 jars (and why is this
> better than 2 packages), and if multiple packages/jars, what is the
> accepted naming scheme (I suggeseted libdbus-java and libdbus-java2,
> you've suggested libdbus-j2se and libdbus-j5se). It's this latter point
> I mainly wanted opinions on.
2 packages:
pros: - if the jar files are large, users don't want to install
large files they don't use
cons: - increase the number of package
- more work for the ftp-masters (they could refuse one of
the package if they think it's not usefull)
- could be trouble for the users
1 package, 2 versions:
pros: - 'same' package, so no more work to for ftp masters
- user install one *or* the other
cons: - impossible to install both at the same time
1 package, 2 jars:
pros: - you only create *one* package
- no overhead for ftp masters
- users have only one package to install
- both versions available at the same time
- easier to add or remove the 1.4 or 5 or 6 or whatever
version without the need of asking the package to
be removed or add a new one
cons: - if the jars are too big, users could be angry because
they have a 2Gb jar file they will never use...
What is the critical size?.. I don't know ;-)
>> Another remark: IMHO a library should not depend on a runtime... any
>> way, this would require a change of the Debian Java Policy.
>
> I believe the debian policy states that they should do:
>
> "Java libraries must depend on the needed runtime environment
> (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime) but should not depend (only
> suggest) java-virtual-machine."
>
> (from http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/x105.html)
I said: *IMHO* a library should not depend on a runtime... any
way, this would require a change of the Debian Java Policy. (that mean I
know the policy says it must depend on a runtime but I don't think it's
a good idea ;-))
Cheers,
- --
.''`.
: :' :rnaud
`. `'
`-
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDu85m4vzFZu62tMIRArCyAJ9RBtkb4khvAU2yy+YSH+IPhQRvnACffHoC
hafZCtUqJWr3QZ8DCVkhk0M=
=qOEx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: