Am Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:39:28 +0200
schrieb Damien Raude-Morvan <drazzib@drazzib.com>:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:39:37 +0200, Matthias Schmitz
> <matthias@sigxcpu.org>
> wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "animal-sniffer-parent".
> >
> > * Package name : animal-sniffer-parent
> > Version : 1.6-1
> > Upstream Author : Kohsuke Kawaguchi, codehaus.org, Stephen
> > Connolly
> > * URL : http://mojo.codehaus.org/animal-sniffer/
> > * License : MIT License
> > Section : java
> [...]
> > My motivation for maintaining this package is:
> > I need thie package as dependency for the sonatype-aether library
> > (which is a maven3 dependency).
>
> I'll check your package during this week-end.
>
> Two comments to start :
> - on source package name: I don't think we should name it with a
> "-parent" suffix ("-parent" imply for me that only parent POM is
> included)
first i named it only "animal-sniffer" but upstreams svn tag name is
animal-sniffer-parent-1.6 so the created orig tarball was named
animal-sniffer-parent_1.6.... and i renamed the source package :-).
> - binary packages count: I don't know if its really necessary to split
> packages that much. Is there really a big number of dependencies ?
First i tried to package only the animal-sniffer.jar with a single
source / binary package but this needs the java-boot-classpath-detector
and i start another single source / binary package. But this seems
wrong because it comes both from the same source and so this bigger
package was created. Should i melt all together in one binary package?
It seems a neat idea to create a single binary package for every sub
module (The jar, the Maven plugin, the Ant task and so on).
best regards,
Matthias
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature