Hello
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:17:18PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Le vendredi 03 juin 2005 à 18:41 -0500, Adam Heath a écrit :
> > > > I agree. A java policy should talk about how java packages should
> > > > interact
> > > > once installed.
Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:35:41 -0500 (CDT),
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>
>> Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:38:13 -0500 (CDT),
>> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:38:13 -0500 (CDT),
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 3 Future
> >> >
> >> > * fix the
Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:38:13 -0500 (CDT),
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>> >
>> > 3 Future
>> >
>> > * fix the Debian Java Policy;
>> > * update the Debian Java FAQ;
>
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 01:06:44PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> instead of trying to force people to do things "your way", i would suggest
> that you come up with an infrastructure for making these packages that
> really is easier and consistant, and then say something like "packages
> built with ja
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:49:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Le vendredi 03 juin 2005 à 18:41 -0500, Adam Heath a écrit :
>> > I agree. A java policy should talk about how java packages
>> > should interact once installed. But stay the hell away from how
>> > they are built.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 03 juin 2005 à 18:41 -0500, Adam Heath a écrit :
> > > I agree. A java policy should talk about how java packages should
> > > interact
> > > once installed. But stay the hell away from how they are built.
> >
> > As an example, debhelpe
Le vendredi 03 juin 2005 à 18:41 -0500, Adam Heath a écrit :
> > I agree. A java policy should talk about how java packages should interact
> > once installed. But stay the hell away from how they are built.
>
> As an example, debhelper, while being very useful for maintainers, is not
> mandated
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 07:13:57PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Hard to tell, I haven't spend time looking. But I can give an example
> of a person unable to discover that I didn't suggest forcing anyone to
> do anything. I formulated a 'recommend and not require' suggestion in
> my mail.
[Sean Finney]
> can you give an example of anywhere else in debian where developers
> are forced to use a specific build tool/system for their packages?
Hard to tell, I haven't spend time looking. But I can give an example
of a person unable to discover that I didn't suggest forcing anyone to
do
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 08:59:30AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I disagree. It should give recommodations on how they should be
> built, to make it easier for the java developers to maintain the java
> packages. Consistency reduce the work maintaining packages, and using
> a common system
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 08:59:30AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adam Heath]
> > I agree. A java policy should talk about how java packages should
> > interact once installed. But stay the hell away from how they are
> > built.
>
> I disagree. It should give recommodations on how they sh
[Adam Heath]
> I agree. A java policy should talk about how java packages should
> interact once installed. But stay the hell away from how they are
> built.
I disagree. It should give recommodations on how they should be
built, to make it easier for the java developers to maintain the java
pac
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > >
> > > 3 Future
> > >
> > > * fix the Debian Java Policy;
> > > * update the Debian Java FAQ;
> > > * more packages to pkg-ja
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> >
> > 3 Future
> >
> > * fix the Debian Java Policy;
> > * update the Debian Java FAQ;
> > * more packages to pkg-java;
> > * every packages to cdbs;
>
>
> Why cdbs?
Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:16:47 -0400,
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>>
>> 3 Future
>>
>> * fix the Debian Java Policy;
>> * update the Debian Java FAQ;
>> * more packages to pkg-java;
>> * every packa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:47:42 +0200,
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Javier,
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> (..)
>> 3 Future
>>
> (..)
>> * update the Debian Java FAQ;
>
> Can you pl
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>
> 3 Future
>
> * fix the Debian Java Policy;
> * update the Debian Java FAQ;
> * more packages to pkg-java;
> * every packages to cdbs;
Why cdbs? I was under the impression that many people disliked/wer
uncomfort
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
(..)
> 3 Future
>
(..)
> * update the Debian Java FAQ;
Can you please provide the information in this mail as a patch to the
Debian Java FAQ? I would like to see that updated and have offered the
document to the debian-java tea
19 matches
Mail list logo
