Le 06/04/2015 16:15, tony mancill a écrit : > I'm wondering it would be less confusing/overall work if we go ahead and > ship an empty jffi-native.jar in /usj + maven artifacts in the > libjffi-java (arch:all) package, which in turn depends on the -jni package. > > Or put another way, do folks think there is a downside to doing that? > It could bypass a potentially confusing step for package maintainers > that depend on jffi, and it doesn't cost much to put them in.
That's a good strategy too, especially if there are many projects depending on the jffi-native artifact. It really depend on how the artifacts are used. If foo depends on foo-native and all projects simply depend on foo, then removing the foo-native dependency from foo is slightly better (one less empty file installed by the package). If most projects depend on foo *and* foo-native then having an empty foo-native artifact is easier for the packagers (one less ignore rule). Emmanuel Bourg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55229b28.6020...@apache.org
