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

Re: munin-java-plugins package - request for review



Tom Feiner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I hope I'm asking this is the right place.
> 

Hi

Yupe, this is the right place. BTW, I assumed that you were reachable
via the Munin Maintainer List, since you did not ask to be explicitly CCed.

> I'm working with the debian munin maintainers [1] to package the
> upcoming version of munin. Munin is a network monitoring system, which
> is extended by plugins to monitor different aspects of the OS and
> running applications.
> 
> Recently, the upstream project received a bunch of plugins to monitor
> JMX on a running server.
> 
> We want to package these plugins for the next version. The only problem
> is that none of the munin maintainers have java packaging experience.
> 
> I've read the java-policy draft [2], and gave it a shot :) but I need
> some help from the experts to catch any mistakes I might have made while
> packaging these java plugins.
> 

Based on feedback from other java maintainers I learned that the policy
itself is somewhat outdated [1]. Nevertheless, the effort is appreciated. :)

> These plugins are basically packaged into a jar, and used from the
> command line.
> 

Currently, its manifest file contains nothing that suggests it can be
used as an application (e.g. no "Main-Class" attribute). The description
of the package it is suggested this is a private jar (e.g. only tools
from munin package(s) should use it); so I have based my review on this.

If I misunderstood how it is used; could I ask you to please provide
some use cases for it?

> The package has been uploaded to debian experimental recently [3]. Can
> someone please take a look at the munin-plugins-java part and give an
> opinion if we're going things properly?
> 

I have given it a go myself:

debian/control:
 * Consider adding java5-runtime-headless and java6-runtime-headless as
alternatives. The policy does not mention these, but they are valid
virtual packages providing a java5 and java6 runtime respective. We may
be phasing the java{1,2}-runtime{,-headless} packages out in the future.
 * The suggest on java-virtual-machine can be dropped. It serves no
purpose anymore; the depends on javaX-runtime{,-headless} does it job.

debian/Makefile.config:
 * JC should refer to /usr/lib/jvm/default-java/bin/javac when you B-D
on default-jdk. Openjdk6 is not available on all archs and on these
default-jdk provides gcj (if I recall correctly). This would also
prevent the package from FTBFS if we later decide to change the default
java on your platform.

Other than this I really did not

> Thanks,
>     Tom Feiner
> 
> [1] - http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/munin.html
> [2] - http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/
> [3] - http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/munin
> 
> 

Thanks for the time and effort,
~Niels

[1] Yes, I know... we should get it updated. Its on my todo-list.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: