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

Re: RFS: service-wrapper-java



Hi Matthew,

Thanks for your advice.

it's a daemon launcher for a jar file so i may say it is a program. I have 3 files : a binary launcher, a jar libary and a jni library.
What about naming three packages ?
 - libservice-wrapper-java (library) arch all
 - libservice-wrapper-jni (jni library) arch i386, amd64...
 and service-wrapper-java for the binary launcher.(arch i386, amd64...)


Rémi Debay,


ACGCenter

Synergie Park Des Bonnettes
2, rue Willy Brandt
62000 Arras, France

Ligne directe : +33 (0)3 21 15 36 36

www.acgcenter.com


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> wrote:
On Mon Aug 09 17:28, Rémi Debay wrote:
> First, Many thanks for the review. I am working on the issues.
> I already moved the library to the new standards but i need to use a
> different make file for each arch to build the jni lib(this is the way it is
> done in upstream source). Is it allowed by standards ? The package you
> checked was restricted to i386.

You will probably end up having code in debian/rules which selects makefiles
based on the value of dpkg-architecture, then rather than being arch: any,
have it restricted to the architectures you have a makefile for.

> As you told me I made two packages :
>
>    - service-wrapper-java (with the wrapper script and the jar file) which
>    is arch all.
>    - libservice-wrapper-java (with the jnilib) which is arch any.
>

Actually, the naming conventions for Java _libraries_ are:

 - libservice-wrapper-java (library)
 - libservice-wrapper-jni (jni library)

However, is it a library? Or a program? If it's a program I would go with:

 - service-wrapper-java
 - service-wrapper-java-jni

Matt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
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=Px1d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: