[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.

Hello Matthias, Michael,

may I express the opinion that you might not have read exactly what I've written? (gosh, I'm so polite :-) )

My list contained all the software *depending* on at least one package containing java in its name. As, according to the Java policy, all packages _must_ depend on either java-common, javaX-runtime or java-virtual-machine, my list should have all Java packages.

For example, bsh, checkstyle and junit are all in my list...

Or did I just miss your point?


PS: no need to cc me, I'm on the list...

Michael Koch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 10:59:04PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Eric Lavarde writes:

number of binary packages is relatively easy if it doesn't need to be precise:

$ aptitude -F '%20p %13s' search '~Djava' | wc -l
(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

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

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: