On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 07:10:25PM +0100, Vincent Prat wrote: > Hi Tony, > > >> Should we package Eclipse Collections as a separate project (in which > >> case I will submit an ITP bug), or update and rename the existing package? > >> For your information, the package gs-collections has no reverse > >> dependency and has not been updated since September 2017. > > I see either choice as acceptable, but my suggestion is to update > > the existing package (and rename it only if you think it is necessary). > > It is the evolution of (and thus an update to) gs-collections. This > > approach means you don't have to go through NEW, we don't have to > > introduce a new package to archive, and developers who know the software > > by gs-collections will still find it. Even if there aren't r-deps in > > Debian, perhaps a downstream is using gs-collections and will benefit > > from the update without a rename. > > What about developers who do not know the software and need Eclipse > Collections? > Do they have to guess that the Java package is provided by the Debian > package gs-collections? Yes, this happens all of the time already. > Eclipse Collections is indeed the evolution of GS Collections, but the > latter still exists as such, even though only bug fixes are made. > By the way, the version present in Debian is out-of-date. > > > If you decide to create a new source package for eclipse-collections, > > please also take the time to RM gs-collections. We don't need to keep > > the old package around if we have a compatible replacement. (I'm > > assuming that eclipse-collections is a drop-in replacement, or nearly so > > - maybe just a Java package name change?) > > Yes, the Java package name is different. So, even if the API is > compatible, this would require downstream to change imports, classpaths, > etc. It sounds you're making the case for having both packages within Debian?!? > In any case, since Emmanuel Bourg was the one who packaged > gs-collections in the first place, it would be nice to have his > opinion on the question. Sure. I won't comment further. tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature