Am 03.09.2018 um 15:38 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Hi Markus, > > Le 03/09/2018 à 14:48, Markus Koschany a écrit : > >> I think this could have been better communicated. I was the one who >> split libequinox-osgi-java off from Eclipse. Why can't we just use the >> existing package and update it accordingly? In any case giving a reason >> for a package takeover by another package even for team-maintained >> packages seems appropriate to me. A bug report would have been ideal for >> this sort of discussion. > > Sorry if this wasn't clear but I did mention taking over > libequinox-osgi-java with src:equinox-framework in July when I exposed > my plan to package the Eclipse dependencies required by AspectJ [1] on > the debian-java mailing list. I didn't receive any feedback on this > point and I didn't expect it would be controversial.
At that point the discussion was mostly about how do we want to name packages. I simply did not realize that you wanted to create the same source package again and call it libeclipse-osgi-java. I thought we were talking about entirely new packages. This is really only a name change. Using the upstream sources from Git instead of Maven Central is merely a packaging detail and could have been implemented in src:libequinox-osgi-java too. As this bug report demonstrates the resulting jar file is the same. > Don't get me wrong, this is definitely not a disapprobation of your work > and I apologize if it looks like it. Your move to split > libequinox-osgi-java from src:eclipse was the right decision to move > things forward and I fully support it. But after having packaged a large > set of Eclipse modules the libequinox-osgi-java package now appears at > odds with the newly introduced packages (Maven Central as upstream vs > Eclipse Git repository, different naming convention, different build > system, no upstream version tracking). That's why I think it's more > consistent to replace libequinox-osgi-java now. No worries, I don't perceive this as a disapprobation of my work. But frankly I find this whole process unnecessary because it is merely a name change and it creates work for the ftp team (package review and package removal), for you/us because the reverse-dependencies have to be updated because of the name change and last but not least we have an RC bug now (which also had to be discovered and reported by someone). I know you will fix this and it is not hard to fix but all that could have been easily avoided. Just updating libequinox-osgi-java would have been a straightforward solution.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.