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

Re: Building maven packages



On 29.12.2016 02:29, Wookey wrote:
[...]

Hi Wookey,

> So why didn;t my substition rules of 
> s/bcel/bcel/ s/bcel/bcel/ jar s/5.1/5.x/
> or 
> s/bcel/bcel/ s/bcel/bcel/ jar s/5.1/6.0/
> work?
> 
> The upstream pom.xml has:
>       <dependency>
>         <groupId>bcel</groupId>
>         <artifactId>bcel</artifactId>
>         <version>5.1</version>
>       </dependency>
> 
> The only thing wrong here seems tobe the version, so what should I do
> here to make mh_make happy that libjava-bcel contains the right stuff?

Don't try to hard to make mh_make happy because it can only give you a
rudimentary skeleton debian directory. (For "easy" packages it works
much better but more complicated projects won't work as expected). We
usually use existing packages, which are quite similar, as templates.

> I also got the complaint that it can't find:
> backport-util-concurrent 
> 
> Do I care about that? Do I need to package that too? <sinking feeling emoji>

Welcome to Java hell ^-^

> 
> Also how does this 'debian' version thing work? Is that like saying
> 'generic/current' version? And we do that to deal with all these
> packages asking for a specific version when they really don't actually
> care (probably). So should I prefer to set the versions for all this
> stuff to 'debian' as that's likely to stay working for longer?

Java is version centric, that means you have to declare that your
software project works exactly with a specified version and if you try
an older or newer one you are basically on your own. :/ As you know in
Debian we try to package only one version of software project X and thus
we need to use a generic "debian" version (and patch packages that don't
work with it).

The debian tools (maven-debian-helper) always rewrite the version to
"debian" by default. You don't have to change anything here. There are a
few libraries which are known to horribly break things. Here we use a
substitution rule like 1.x for versions ranging from 1.0 to 1.99 etc,
instead of using the generic "debian" version because we know that
version 2.x will break the package.

> Cheers for pointers.

I guess it would be easier if you gave me some link to your package and
I try to figure out why it fails for you at the moment. Please also
describe what you want to achieve, so that I get the bigger picture and
if you're lucky I might be able to explain why it didn't work as expected.

Cheers,

Markus

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: