[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-389?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13219514#comment-13219514
]
Bruno Mahé commented on BIGTOP-389:
-----------------------------------
See
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Architecture
{noformat}
+Architecture: i386 amd64
{noformat}
Why not use "any"? Does it only build on i386 and amd64 exclusively? I would
rather keep it open unless it really only builds on i386 and amd64 only.
Nitpick: Should we follow Fedora guidelines regarding license names? They
already have a standardized and consistent set of short names for license:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses
{noformat}+BIGTOP_JSVC_RELNOTES_NAME=Apache Commons Daemon (jsvc){noformat}
I don't think it's being used (yet). But it does not hurt either to keep it.
> need to start packaging apache commons daemon jsvc
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BIGTOP-389
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-389
> Project: Bigtop
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: General
> Affects Versions: 0.2.0
> Reporter: Roman Shaposhnik
> Assignee: Roman Shaposhnik
> Fix For: 0.3.0
>
> Attachments: BIGTOP-389-2.patch.txt, BIGTOP-389.patch.txt
>
>
> The packages for jsvc seem to lag behind on Linux distros, it would be nice
> if Bigtop provided the packages of the latest ones as they are need by Hadoop
> DN.
> Please note we're not attempting to repackage the JAVA part of the commons
> daemon project.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
