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

Re: Bug#698164: mandate unique package names in Debian Java policy



On 14/01/2013 21:25, Tomasz Muras wrote:
> On 01/14/2013 09:16 PM, Eric Lavarde wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I don't think this is a problem at the moment - we do not have any
> collisions, do we?
> I second Eric - it should not be enforced + close the bug.
I share Eric's point of view.

It is already hard enough to package and maintain Java libraries...

Sylvestre


Reply to: