On 04/14/2014 09:14 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 10/04/2014 09:27, Andreas Tille a écrit : > >> So if there are Debian Java team members who have some preference why >> not recommending this in a policy document? For people who are seldomly >> touching Java packages strict rules would be simply helpful. > > I guess there is a lack of consensus to turn this into a policy. That > sound like an excellent bikeshedding topic that could keep us busy > during the freeze :) My preference aligns with Emmanuel's - that is, use the upstream name for the source package, provided that it isn't so generic so as to be confusing or conflicting with other packages in the archive. However, I'm reluctant to suggest that we need a policy for this, because I don't want us to spend time renaming packages just so the source package names conform to an arbitrary policy. (However, documenting a recommendation would be nice.) Having a policy for the library binary packages seems sufficient to catch most potential duplicates. If you want to want package foo.jar, you can start by looking for an existing libfoo-java. In any event, it's great that DebianMed is lending a helping hand. Continue to let us know what could be done better, and don't be shy about asking for pkg-java commit rights/Java Team membership. tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature