Matthias Klose wrote: > On 23.03.2010 10:26, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Hi >> >> I have compiled two patches against the current policy that I intend to >> apply Friday assuming there are no objections. > > mentioning default-jdk-doc would be useful. > > It is mentioned once: Java library packages &should; compile the javadoc API of the library. The API &must; link against the javadoc API of the libraries it depends on. This includes the core java classes, which are provided by &d-jdoc;. The API &must; be registered with doc-base and &must; be installed in <filename>/usr/share/doc/<package>/api/</filename> or <filename>/usr/share/doc/<package>/api-<component>/</filename>. &d-jdoc; is expanded to <emphasis>default-jdk-doc</emphasis>. But yes, I feel that the default-* packages should definitely be listed in the policy as "interesting packages", but I intend to save that for a later patch. ~Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature