RFC: clojure (and a request to join pkg-java)
peter at pcc.me.uk
Mon Jan 5 20:47:23 UTC 2009
Thank you for your comments.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 11:00:50AM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> Please send the manual pages and patches upstream if appropriate and
> you have not already.
I have already sent appropriate patches upstream.
I plan to consult with upstream regarding the wrapper scripts as
they do not provide any, and among the various existing clojure
packages for other distributions there does not seem to be a common
naming/semantics convention. If upstream decides to provide scripts
then it may be appropriate to send the manpages upstream.
> Since the copyright/licensing is slightly complex, you may want to use this:
I considered that, but decided to wait until the proposal is finalised
before implementing it.
> Instead of filing #510356, you could have just retitled #454566.
> Please retitle #454566 to an ITP, set yourself to the owner and merge
> the two bugs, docs about how are here:
> Why the build-dep on patchutils?
This is required because I use cdbs's simple-patchsys:
> Do you plan to use this for another package? Or are you using clojure itself?
No, only clojure itself.
> Have you seen javahelper or debhelper 7?
I have seen them but have decided to go with cdbs as I prefer it,
it simplifies the rules file for this type of package, and there
seems to be little precedent for using javahelper or debhelper 7
for Java-related packages in the archive (4 packages use javahelper,
1 uses debhelper 7).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20090105/3bca63c6/attachment.pgp
More information about the pkg-java-maintainers