Hi all,

I thought about packaging the Apache Commons Math Library[1] which I use
regularly. I do have a some question though and would like to ask you
for your opinion on that:

1. Other commons source packages seem to be renamed to libcommon-*-java.
Do all commons packages do this? Is there a kind of agreement on this?

2. The commons-math tarball ships three jars containing the class files,
source files and documentation, respectively. Is it OK to just put them
in the Debian package (as they are) or should I extract the source and
rebuild a Debian source package from that? (The tarball is 4.5 MB large,
extracted sources are 2.3 MB, tarred+gzipped 270 KB.)

3. Is the above case known from other commons libraries? I'd be thankful
for a pointer to a package that I could have a look at.

Or is there no need for this library at all?

Best regards
Manuel

[1] http://commons.apache.org/math/

Hi Manuel,

Manuel Prinz said:
> Hi all,
>
> I thought about packaging the Apache Commons Math Library[1] which I use
> regularly. I do have a some question though and would like to ask you
> for your opinion on that:
>
> 1. Other commons source packages seem to be renamed to libcommon-*-java.
> Do all commons packages do this? Is there a kind of agreement on this?
Yes. the lib*-java part is given by the Java Policy [2], the rest is more
of a "common" understanding.

>
> 2. The commons-math tarball ships three jars containing the class files,
> source files and documentation, respectively. Is it OK to just put them
> in the Debian package (as they are) or should I extract the source and
> rebuild a Debian source package from that? (The tarball is 4.5 MB large,
> extracted sources are 2.3 MB, tarred+gzipped 270 KB.)
Everything which is generated needs to be generated from source as part of
the package build. As if you need to repackage the sources, it's yes if
some is not distributable, and it's at your judgement if you spare a lot
of space. In your case, I would repackage the source. See [3] for more
details.

>
> 3. Is the above case known from other commons libraries? I'd be thankful
> for a pointer to a package that I could have a look at.
Can't answer. Once the upstream sources are repackaged, you can use any
package as a basis for your work.

>
> Or is there no need for this library at all?
If you're willing to package and maintain it, there is a need :-) (but *I*
don't need it). You can check [4].

Eric

>
> Best regards
> Manuel
>
> [1] http://commons.apache.org/math/
>
>
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/x105.html
[3]
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz
[4] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/

--
Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hi Eric,

thanks for your answers!

Am Mittwoch, den 16.07.2008, 15:39 +0200 schrieb Eric Lavarde - Debian:
> Manuel Prinz said:
> > 1. Other commons source packages seem to be renamed to libcommon-*-java.
> > Do all commons packages do this? Is there a kind of agreement on this?
> Yes. the lib*-java part is given by the Java Policy [2], the rest is more
> of a "common" understanding.

My question here was whether I should rename the source package to match
the binary package. So, should the source package be named
libcommons-math-java as well? I did not find an answer to that in the
Java Policy.

I already maintain a Java library package where that's not the case.
("pj" source package builds "libpj-java".)

> > 2. The commons-math tarball ships three jars containing the class files,
> > source files and documentation, respectively. Is it OK to just put them
> > in the Debian package (as they are) or should I extract the source and
> > rebuild a Debian source package from that? (The tarball is 4.5 MB large,
> > extracted sources are 2.3 MB, tarred+gzipped 270 KB.)
> Everything which is generated needs to be generated from source as part of
> the package build. As if you need to repackage the sources, it's yes if
> some is not distributable, and it's at your judgement if you spare a lot
> of space. In your case, I would repackage the source. See [3] for more
> details.

Thinking about it, I will probably repack. I may have to write a build
script, though.

Best regards
Manuel

Hi Manuel,

Manuel Prinz schrieb:

2. The commons-math tarball ships three jars containing the class files,
source files and documentation, respectively. Is it OK to just put them
in the Debian package (as they are) or should I extract the source and
rebuild a Debian source package from that? (The tarball is 4.5 MB large,
extracted sources are 2.3 MB, tarred+gzipped 270 KB.)


We have got lots of pre-built jars in the jbossas source tarball. The
original maintainers Torsten/Varun wrote an orig-tar.sh script triggered
by a get-orig-source target in their rules file that automatically
strips all binaries from the source tarball and re-packages it. The
generated Debian source package contains no binaries at all.


I think this is the right way to go as it keeps source packages
considerably smaller and above all ensures that non-free binaries could
never creep into build and/or runtime. I think it's ok (and necessary)
to upload documentation in the source package, however. Otherwise how
would you be able to make your ...-doc-... package?



3. Is the above case known from other commons libraries? I'd be thankful
for a pointer to a package that I could have a look at.


See [1].

Regards,

Florian

[1]
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/contrib/j/jbossas4/jbossas4_4.2.2.GA-5.dsc



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org