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

Bug#548755: [Policy Update] Updating the java-policy to reflect current practices + small changes.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Package: java-common
> Version: 0.33
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> Hi
> I have made an attempt to bring the java policy up to date and made some 
> small changes to make it more compatible with the Debian Policy.
> Attached is a patch and a list of the changes. I have also provided these 
> along with how it would look if this patch is applied at the following
> website [#1].
> To those of you, who already read my previous draft, please note that I
> modified section [2] and [2.1] to [2.4]. The modifications done to
> [2] and [2.2] to [2.4] is merely to mention the "headless" counterpart of
> the javaX-runtime packages. However [2.1] has received a few more
> modifications, where I have spelled out when a VM providing package may
> provide a headless vs a non-headless.

Thanks for doing the hard work on this. We should really work to finish this,

There is one typo I saw: 'jave' should be 'Java'. There are also some
unneeded whitespace changes in the file which makes the diff just bigger.

I have also some issues with 2.4. The naming looks like its written in stone.
The problem is that you can use each Java program as library. Checkstyle
is a good example for this. For such cases we should define that its up to
the maintainer to decide.

Another issue is the jars need to be named like 'packagename-fullversion.jar'.
Some packages does not fullfil this. See bouncycastle. We should never need
to rename jars because of policy. We should always keep upstream jar name,
if possible (no conflicts with other software). Otherwise we will need to
adapt each software depending on that Java library.


Reply to: