[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#448286: java-common: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Almost all Java libraries should be in section libs.

On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 10:59:04PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Eric Lavarde writes:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > number of binary packages is relatively easy if it doesn't need to be 
> > precise:
> > 
> > $ aptitude -F '%20p %13s' search '~Djava' | wc -l
> > 419
> > (all packages depending on packages containing java in their name; a 
> > quick browsing through it tells me that it's a rather meaningful list)
> packages ending in -gcj should be counted as well, other packages like
> bsh are not on your list. I think Michael did have a more complete
> list.

Its hard to get a correct list as much java software can be used as
library or as standalone app (depending on the usecase). Checkstyle is a
good example, junit another.
> > Is there a command to get the source package name based on the binary 
> > package name (aptitude doesn't seem to know about source packages)? Then 
> > it's as easy... (I've got an idea of an ugly apt-cache hack, but perhaps 
> > there is better)
> use dctrl-tools to get the source package name from the binary package
> name.

That tool is definitely the way to go. We should dig our head into it
and write a rule to find all java (related) packages.

> > What do you mean with "a proposal for archive admins"? Are you referring 
> > to some part of the Debian policy I should actually know about? (well, 
> > I'm no DD, so I've got an excuse)
> no, afaik the last two sections added (perl and python) by archive
> admins themself for technical reasons, not for some policy.

Its about mirroring only parts of the archive. I think. I guess many
people would be glad when they dont have to mirror the Java stuff which
they dont use anyway.


Reply to: