On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 07 février 2005 à 22:12 +0100, Dag Wieers a écrit : > > On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Anthony Green wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 05:58 -0500, Build System wrote: > > > > beecrypt-4.1.2-1 > > > > ---------------- > > > > * Sat Feb 05 2005 Jeff Johnson <jbj@xxxxxxx> 4.1.2-1 > > > > - upgrade to 4.1.2 > > > > - put java components in sub-package. > > > > - check that /usr/lib64 is not used on alpha (#146583). > > > > > > You called this sub-package beecrypt-java. I suggest renaming this to > > > something like beecrypt-java-jni. It only contains the JNI C side of > > > the beecrypt java library. The library of java code for beecrypt is > > > widely known as "beecrypt-java" (google for beecrypt-java-2.0.0.zip). > > > beecrypt-java hasn't been packaged yet, but it will surely require this > > > beecrypt-java-jni. > > > > I would suggest java-something as a standard name, just like > > python-something, perl-something and other subpackage policies. > > Please no oh no. > Do you imagine the mess if ~ 1000 java-something hit rawhide ? Because > we have this number of java packages in jpackage. Well, I'm happy that perl packages have a seperate namespace and I would love python, mono and java packages pursue this further than they do (even without a CPAN alike infrastructure). Does Jpackage have 1000 java-class packages ? Because I'm not arguing to have everything java-based to fit this scheme, only packages that extend the java 'platform'. Just like perl-modules, python-classes or for that matter xmms-plugins... -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
