On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 07 février 2005 à 23:01 +0100, Dag Wieers a écrit : > > > 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... > > Unfortunately with java very often lib = leaf app. The jar is the lib > and with a small shell script that is often not worth spinning out in a > separate package you get you get the app. In that case the JAR is not really shared much (if at all) between other apps ? So in that case we would not prepend the namespace, but I understand it's harder with Java than perl, mono or python. It would be silly to have a seperate package holding just the shell-script (unless we want to compete with Debian in number of packages). Still in the case of beecrypt, I would prefer java-beecrypt over beecrypt-java. Even if it is not a 100% cut case and the majority of the packages follow the exception rather than the rule. (ie. the exception is part of the policy too) Thanks for the torough explanation, I picked up a few things new to me. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
