Hello,
On 14/01/13 19:48, Daniel Pocock wrote:
A few projects exist without following this convention, and sooner or
later somebody may try to package one of them.
According to the Java Language Specification, using a domain name is a
"suggested convention" and not a mandatory obligation. Nonetheless, in
an environment such as Debian where we have to keep many different
packages concurrently on a single system, I would contend that we should
mandate the use of this "suggestion"
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-6.html#d5e6504
The package domain is a decision of upstream, not of the packager, hence
I don't think that such recommendation has its place in the Java policy:
1. it doesn't create any collision in terms of packaging
2. it might create collision in terms of using two such libraries BUT
a. developers using two such libraries have to cope with this issue
also outside of Debian anyway
b. and in terms of portability, any developer using one of both
libraries would thank us (irony!) if we'd change the package name as it
would force them to change their import statements only for Debian
This said, we can put a suggestion in the Java Policy to influence
upstream to fix their package naming convention, but:
A. it's the same as for any other upstream "bug", so why document the
obvious?
B. I doubt that such a badly named package would be of enough interest /
quality for Debian packaging (but I might be wrong, I don't know any
example)
Conclusion: I vote against + close the bug.