Differences between revisions 9 and 10
⇤ ← Revision 9 as of 2009-07-28 10:28:47 →
Size: 2242
Editor: MatthewJohnson
Comment:
← Revision 10 as of 2009-07-28 10:30:19 → ⇥
Size: 2252
Editor: MatthewJohnson
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 30: Line 30:
 - don't depend on runtimes for libraries, but extend debian/control for classfile version
 - default build (via ant options / jh_build default) to java 5 bytecode
 - happy with the rest		   * don't depend on runtimes for libraries, but extend debian/control for classfile version
  * default build (via ant options / jh_build default) to java 5 bytecode
  * happy with the rest
Line 34: Line 34:
 - fine   * fine
Line 36: Line 36:
 - javadoc in /usr/share/doc/package/api even if it's in package-doc
 - non-doc packages don't depend on classpath-doc
 - depends/links not in policy but best practice		   * javadoc in /usr/share/doc/package/api even if it's in package-doc
  * non-doc packages don't depend on classpath-doc
  * depends/links not in policy but best practice
Line 40: Line 40:
 - don't specify 'junit' just 'automated tests
 - test failures cause package build fail based on env var?		   * don't specify 'junit' just 'automated tests
  * test failures cause package build fail based on env var?
Line 43: Line 43:
 - fine   * fine
Line 45: Line 45:
 - we want it, but should be compatible with osgi/jigsaw (tools to fix it all up)  * we want it, but should be compatible with osgi/jigsaw (tools to fix it all up)
Line 47: Line 47:
 - doing 'sonames' with file/package naming and so on is generally a good idea, but there are some concerns about extra dev packages for the unversioned link and the work in checking for upstream transitions which they don't announce  * doing 'sonames' with file/package naming and so on is generally a good idea, but there are some concerns about extra dev packages for the unversioned link and the work in checking for upstream transitions which they don't announce

There is a BoF about java packaging at 11am UTC+2:00. It won't be video'd, but we will have people on #debian-java on oftc if anyone else wants to contribute.

I sent an email to the list to try and get opinions in advance, here is a short agenda summarising that email. Please do put other things on here.

Agenda

  • Actually merging the changes from the FOSDEM draft

  • Packaging tools we need (see javahelper)

  • Recursive classpath detection
  • Other transition issues
  • Executable jars / wrappers
  • jar and wrapper locations
  • Multiarch issues
    • /usr/lib/jvm
    • /usr/lib/jni
    • multi-arch depends

  • Maven in Debian (Java/MavenBuilder, Java/MavenRepoHelper, Java/MavenRepoSpec)

  • OpenJDK
  • Jigsaw
  • major packaging projects: spring, jboss, glassfish, ...
  • getting more contributers, cooperation with Ubuntu

Random notes

  • Maybe we want a jh_classpath so we can move between ways of doing transitive classpaths more easily, rather than just jh_manifest (I've just added this to javahelper)

Notes from first session

Java/Draft:

  • Java libraries
    • don't depend on runtimes for libraries, but extend debian/control for classfile version
    • default build (via ant options / jh_build default) to java 5 bytecode
    • happy with the rest
  • GCJ-native
    • fine
  • Javadoc
    • javadoc in /usr/share/doc/package/api even if it's in package-doc
    • non-doc packages don't depend on classpath-doc
    • depends/links not in policy but best practice
  • Tests
    • don't specify 'junit' just 'automated tests
    • test failures cause package build fail based on env var?
  • arch-dependent jars
    • fine

Recursive classpath detection:

  • we want it, but should be compatible with osgi/jigsaw (tools to fix it all up)

Transitions:

  • doing 'sonames' with file/package naming and so on is generally a good idea, but there are some concerns about extra dev packages for the unversioned link and the work in checking for upstream transitions which they don't announce