Hi Eric,
thanks for your answers!
Am Mittwoch, den 16.07.2008, 15:39 +0200 schrieb Eric Lavarde - Debian:
> Manuel Prinz said:
> > 1. Other commons source packages seem to be renamed to libcommon-*-java.
> > Do all commons packages do this? Is there a kind of agreement on this?
> Yes. the lib*-java part is given by the Java Policy [2], the rest is more
> of a "common" understanding.
My question here was whether I should rename the source package to match
the binary package. So, should the source package be named
libcommons-math-java as well? I did not find an answer to that in the
Java Policy.
I already maintain a Java library package where that's not the case.
("pj" source package builds "libpj-java".)
> > 2. The commons-math tarball ships three jars containing the class files,
> > source files and documentation, respectively. Is it OK to just put them
> > in the Debian package (as they are) or should I extract the source and
> > rebuild a Debian source package from that? (The tarball is 4.5 MB large,
> > extracted sources are 2.3 MB, tarred+gzipped 270 KB.)
> Everything which is generated needs to be generated from source as part of
> the package build. As if you need to repackage the sources, it's yes if
> some is not distributable, and it's at your judgement if you spare a lot
> of space. In your case, I would repackage the source. See [3] for more
> details.
Thinking about it, I will probably repack. I may have to write a build
script, though.
Best regards
Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil