Marcus Better better.se> writes:
>
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > It's a good idea to remove generated javadoc and jar files and classes.
> >
> > Very much so. Unless you build from source, you have no way to know
> > that the binaries correspond to that source code. You can't even
> > guarante
Matthias Klose wrote:
> looked at libcommons-logging-java, jaxen, dom4j, which do not use
> maven for the build. so which sources are actually including maven
> jars?
I think we are talking about two different things here. No packages include
maven jars. Some packages use maven upstream, but in al
Marcus Better writes:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Marcus Better writes:
> >> instance we ship a lot of packages that build with Maven, but since we
> >> don't have Maven in Debian, we use the included, pre-generated, Ant build
> >> file instead. What should we do about those?
> >
> > if these pack
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Marcus Better writes:
>> instance we ship a lot of packages that build with Maven, but since we
>> don't have Maven in Debian, we use the included, pre-generated, Ant build
>> file instead. What should we do about those?
>
> if these packages are in main, file a RC report a
Marcus Better writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > It's a good idea to remove generated javadoc and jar files and classes.
> >
> > Very much so. Unless you build from source, you have no way to know
> > that the binaries correspond to that source code. You can't even
> > guarantee that you're no
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Marcus Better wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
> It's a good idea to remove generated javadoc and jar files and classes.
Very much so. Unless you build from source, you have no way to know
that the binaries correspond to that source code. You can't even
guarantee that you're n
Andrew Haley wrote:
> > It's a good idea to remove generated javadoc and jar files and classes.
>
> Very much so. Unless you build from source, you have no way to know
> that the binaries correspond to that source code. You can't even
> guarantee that you're not violating the GPL, which require
Marcus Better wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>> It's a good idea to remove generated javadoc and jar files and classes.
>
> Well, let's agree to disagree. :)
>
>> They can be removed to use less space and be sure not to include code
>> that has been build with non free dependencies.
>
> The spac
On 12/12/06, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> It's a good idea to remove generated javadoc and jar files and classes.
Well, let's agree to disagree. :)
;-)
> They can be removed to use less space and be sure not to include code
> that has been build with non f
Hello,
> > They can be removed to use less space and be sure not to include code
> > that has been build with non free dependencies.
>
> The space argument is rather weak IMHO, and certainly shouldn't warrant
> rebuilding a source tarball only for that purpose. (Or do you have a source
> for th
Arnaud Vandyck writes:
> On 12/6/06, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > > Generally speaking yes, but the Debian Java Policy suggests, that class
> > > files should be removed from upstream release [1].
> >
> > That advice is plain wrong. (And it's not par
On 12/6/06, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Generally speaking yes, but the Debian Java Policy suggests, that class
> files should be removed from upstream release [1].
That advice is plain wrong. (And it's not part of the actual Java policy as
the page says.)
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> It's a good idea to remove generated javadoc and jar files and classes.
Well, let's agree to disagree. :)
> They can be removed to use less space and be sure not to include code
> that has been build with non free dependencies.
The space argument is rather weak IMHO, and
Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Generally speaking yes, but the Debian Java Policy suggests, that class
> files should be removed from upstream release [1].
That advice is plain wrong. (And it's not part of the actual Java policy as
the page says.)
Many Java packages come with jar files for dependencies
[Please CC I am not subscribed]
Hello,
> It's preferable to leave the package contents exactly as upstream, and just
> repackage into a tarball. In that case you don't need to tag the orig
> filename.
Generally speaking yes, but the Debian Java Policy suggests, that class
files should be removed
It's preferable to leave the package contents exactly as upstream, and just
repackage into a tarball. In that case you don't need to tag the orig
filename.
See
http://people.debian.org/~daniel/documents/packaging.html
for some recommendations.
Marcus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
[Please CC, I am not subscribed]
Hello,
I have an upstream release umlet.zip with the given content:
umlet.zip
+- com.umlet.plugin
+-
+- umlet.jar
+ <.class file hierarchy>
+ src
+ <.java file hierarchy>
(i.e. u
17 matches
Mail list logo
