Re: Change in default behaviour in maven-debian-helper
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi Ludovic
On 21/02/12 22:08, Ludovic Claude wrote:
> The new behaviour of maven-debian-helper seems more correct. I
> think that for most cases, you explicitely add --java-lib option to
> publish your jar in /usr/share/java, but there are cases where a
> jar is private, for example Ant or Eclipse plugins. In such cases,
> you can create a link to a custom location (with the third argument
> to mh_installjar) or install the jar in that custom location
> (using - --dest-jar=<path>) and let mh_installjar create a link for
> the jar in the Maven repository.
>
> Please file bug reports for those packages which are broken by
> this change, I tried to fix such packages some time ago but there
> are still some problems in packages I don't know.
It would be nice the m-d-h made more intelligent decisioning on
whether to install to /usr/share/java or not.
For example, if the binary package name that m-d-h is targetting is
named libXXX-java, it would make sense to automatically install to
/usr/share/java. If the package is not a libXXX-java package then it
a) does not want to install to usj or b) has to do it explicitly with
- --java-lib.
Lintian checks that libXXX-java packages install jar files to
/usr/share/java - I don't think mdh should be breaking that rule!
I'd be happy to work up a patch to implement this functionality (feel
it might be a better spend of time rather than continually finding
packages which don't use --java-lib).
Thoughts?
Cheers
James
- --
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=QrY8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: