On Thu, 06. Jun 21:20 Felix Natter <fnatter@gmx.net> wrote: [...] > > The larger issue/question about maintaining multiple versions of Java > > libraries remains. My instinct is that for jgoodies-forms, it is best > > to move forward (that is port rdeps) when possible instead of supporting > > the numerous versions out there. Obviously this strategy won't work for > > all libraries, but I think it's preferable when feasible. The > > alternative is serious archive bloat and cruft. > > I also don't think it's worth maintaining numerous versions, also > because it can easily be fixed. I don't think this is the case for all > packages (but I don't have much experience). However, it's important to post > here and/or mail the maintainers. In such a post, we could negotiate > whether such an additional package is really necessary. > > Maybe this can be automated, like Emmanuel suggests in Thread "RFS: > guava-libraries/14.0.1-1". I think as a first step, a simple mail > announcing the upgrade and including the changelog could be mailed to > all rdep maintainers (and d-java?) ? I agree with Tony here. Maintaining multiple versions of one Java library seems like overkill to me in this case. As long as the list of reverse dependencies is relatively short, i think "keep it simple" is the way to go like an e-mail to the list or bug report asking to test a new version in experimental, hence we can all work on possible issues and simplify the life of a library maintainer a little. Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature