Re: RFS: various packages
On Tue, May 29, 2007 2:32 pm, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Hi, I'm looking for sponsors for various packages, but none of the DDs I
> know are happy about uploading Java packages. So, is there anyone on
> this list who could review and upload some Java packages for me.
> [...]
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Matt
Hi Matt,
I'm not a DD so cannot sponsor your packages, but I can have a look at
some of them if you would find that helpful.
A couple of general comments:
1) I'm having some trouble downloading your packages (failures to connect
/ aborted connections). It worked after a few attempts, but I thought you
might want to know about it.
2) Would you be interested in team maintenence of these packages? I think
you might find joining the Java Packaging Team interesting.
3) "libmatthew-java" doesn't sound quite right to me. Just my own personal
preference, I guess, but I'd prefer to see a library named after its
purpose, rather than its author.
4) I think your copyright file needs to be expanded (e.g. have a look at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html). Also
some of your files are *L*GPL, which isn't clear from the copyright file.
(I know you're the upstream author and owner of the copyrights, but these
ftp-masters are tough people).
5) Is there some confusion over version numbers? E.g. upstream version
appears to be 0.4, but the io jar is installed as io-0.1.jar. The "debug"
package contains a mixture of 0.1 and 1.1 versions. UnixSockets is version
0.2.
6) I'm a bit uneasy about the generality of your Jar names, e.g. io.jar
and unix.jar. These names sound too fundamental to me. Again this could
just be my own bias, but I'd expect something called "unix.jar" to be a
very substantial collection of Unix functions.
I can have a more detailed look tonight or tomorrow, if you'd like me to.
Hopefully there might be a DD around by then, who can have a proper look.
Thanks,
Paul
Reply to: