Hi Michael, Am Samstag, den 23.03.2013, 13:40 +0100 schrieb Michael Stapelberg: > Hi Benjamin, > > Benjamin Drung <bdr...@debian.org> writes: > > I tried, but failed miserable. Some libraries needs to be packaged and > > the upstream build system needs to be bent to build on Debian. I would > > love to ditch the launcher and replace it with a proper package. This is > > a lot of work. Until this work is done, I like to have this launcher in > > the contrib archive. This is suboptimal, but better than nothing. > I suspected that, but I really don’t want to get into Java packaging, > especially not in such a hairy case.
That's comprehensible. > > I think the description is clear enough (otherwise improvements are > > welcome). The package is installer, launcher, and provides desktop > > integration. If you have a strong opinion to rename the package, can you > > provide name suggestions? > I’d suggest jdownloader-installer, but I don’t have a strong opinion for > renaming the package in the first place — I just think it would be a > good idea in order to keep the name jdownloader for “proper” packages > later and make it clear to users what they are getting when they are > installing jdownloader. A name conflict is no problem. This package will just be replaced by the “proper” packages later. Alternative package would be jdownloader-downloader, jdownloader-launcher. There are a bunch of packages in contribute with "-installer" in its name. A package that do not follow this rules is flashplugin-nonfree. I haven't made up my mind what name to choose. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1364043562.3474.15.camel@deep-thought
