On Tue May 29 16:44, Paul Cager wrote: > 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 > > 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: Any comments are good. > 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. Hmm, thanks, I've not seen a problem, but I was doing a lot of disk activity to the NFS server about then, which may have caused it. > 2) Would you be interested in team maintenence of these packages? I think > you might find joining the Java Packaging Team interesting. Well, I'm pretty happy maintaining these myself, but I am quite interested in the general Java-Debian scene and I'm subscribed to the mailing list already. (reordered for combining things with the same answer) > 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). Oops, good point (-: (of course I can always re-licence LGPL to GPL even if I'm not the copyright holder, but I'd forgotten I'd licenced them LGPL originally) > 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. > > 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. Well, I've several small (only a few classes) libraries with different purposes. I didn't think it was worth a separate source package for each, therefore there isn't really an overall purpose for the library as a whole. The _binary_ packages do have more appropriate names (libunixsocket-java, libcgi-java etc). The ones which are too generic and likely to clash are qualified with libmatthew$something-java because someone else said that calling mine libdebug-java would be likely to clash. I don't really know what else to do with the names. This is also why the versions are out of sync; I'd like to be able to keep track of the versions of each one separately, whereas the whole source also needs a version. > 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. Sure, thanks, Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature