FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Java

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-29-2011, 03:39 PM
Damien Raude-Morvan
 
Default RFS: animal-sniffer-parent

Hi Matthias,

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:39:37 +0200, Matthias Schmitz
<matthias@sigxcpu.org>
wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "animal-sniffer-parent".
>
> * Package name : animal-sniffer-parent
> Version : 1.6-1
> Upstream Author : Kohsuke Kawaguchi, codehaus.org, Stephen Connolly
> * URL : http://mojo.codehaus.org/animal-sniffer/
> * License : MIT License
> Section : java
[...]
> My motivation for maintaining this package is:
> I need thie package as dependency for the sonatype-aether library
> (which is a maven3 dependency).

I'll check your package during this week-end.

Two comments to start :
- on source package name: I don't think we should name it with a "-parent"
suffix ("-parent" imply for me that only parent POM is included)
- binary packages count: I don't know if its really necessary to split
packages that much. Is there really a big number of dependencies ?

Regards,
--
Damien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 91fbf31093e2da387625f9ff2434596f@drazzib.com">http ://lists.debian.org/91fbf31093e2da387625f9ff2434596f@drazzib.com
 
Old 04-30-2011, 07:12 PM
Matthias Schmitz
 
Default RFS: animal-sniffer-parent

Am Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:39:28 +0200
schrieb Damien Raude-Morvan <drazzib@drazzib.com>:

> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:39:37 +0200, Matthias Schmitz
> <matthias@sigxcpu.org>
> wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "animal-sniffer-parent".
> >
> > * Package name : animal-sniffer-parent
> > Version : 1.6-1
> > Upstream Author : Kohsuke Kawaguchi, codehaus.org, Stephen
> > Connolly
> > * URL : http://mojo.codehaus.org/animal-sniffer/
> > * License : MIT License
> > Section : java
> [...]
> > My motivation for maintaining this package is:
> > I need thie package as dependency for the sonatype-aether library
> > (which is a maven3 dependency).
>
> I'll check your package during this week-end.
>
> Two comments to start :
> - on source package name: I don't think we should name it with a
> "-parent" suffix ("-parent" imply for me that only parent POM is
> included)
first i named it only "animal-sniffer" but upstreams svn tag name is
animal-sniffer-parent-1.6 so the created orig tarball was named
animal-sniffer-parent_1.6.... and i renamed the source package :-).

> - binary packages count: I don't know if its really necessary to split
> packages that much. Is there really a big number of dependencies ?
First i tried to package only the animal-sniffer.jar with a single
source / binary package but this needs the java-boot-classpath-detector
and i start another single source / binary package. But this seems
wrong because it comes both from the same source and so this bigger
package was created. Should i melt all together in one binary package?
It seems a neat idea to create a single binary package for every sub
module (The jar, the Maven plugin, the Ant task and so on).

best regards,
Matthias
 
Old 05-01-2011, 01:55 PM
"Damien Raude-Morvan"
 
Default RFS: animal-sniffer-parent

Hi Matthias,

Here is a more extended review of your package.

Le samedi 30 avril 2011 21:12:07, Matthias Schmitz a écrit :
> > - on source package name: I don't think we should name it with a
> > "-parent" suffix ("-parent" imply for me that only parent POM is
> > included)
>
> first i named it only "animal-sniffer" but upstreams svn tag name is
> animal-sniffer-parent-1.6 so the created orig tarball was named
> animal-sniffer-parent_1.6.... and i renamed the source package :-).

The tag is named like that because in pom.xml file, artifactId is set to
"animal-sniffer-parent". So when upstream make a new release (with maven-
release-plugin) this artifactId is used a tag name "format". But for me that's
orthogonal to upstream source package name. Is it ok for your to rename it ?

> > - binary packages count: I don't know if its really necessary to split
> > packages that much. Is there really a big number of dependencies ?
>
> First i tried to package only the animal-sniffer.jar with a single
> source / binary package but this needs the java-boot-classpath-detector
> and i start another single source / binary package. But this seems
> wrong because it comes both from the same source and so this bigger
> package was created. Should i melt all together in one binary package?
> It seems a neat idea to create a single binary package for every sub
> module (The jar, the Maven plugin, the Ant task and so on).

YMMV, but for my point of view 1) animal-sniffer is a small package 2) there is
no big dependency chain, I see no need to split it that much:
65000 for orig.tar.gz
5492 libanimal-sniffer-annotations-java
9078 libanimal-sniffer-annotations-java-doc
254552 libanimal-sniffer-ant-tasks-java
15690 libanimal-sniffer-ant-tasks-java-doc
10372 libanimal-sniffer-enforcer-rule-java
13642 libanimal-sniffer-enforcer-rule-java-doc
23936 libanimal-sniffer-java
24050 libanimal-sniffer-java-doc
22302 libanimal-sniffer-maven-plugin-java
17420 libanimal-sniffer-maven-plugin-java-doc
6904 libjava-boot-classpath-detector-java
9540 libjava-boot-classpath-detector-java-doc

You can check FTP Master Reject FAQ [1] for explanation of my point :
You split a package too much or in a broken way. Well, broken or too
much is a wide definition, so this is a case-by-case thing, but you should
really think about a split before you do it. For example it doesn't make
any sense to split a 50k arch:all package from a 250k arch:any one. Or
splitting a package for only one file, depending on the main package. Yes,
big dependency chains can be a reason. Or big documentation splitted into
one -doc package. The point there is big.

Another - linked - comment I have is about providing -doc packages with
Javadoc API.
For example, libjava-boot-classpath-detector-java-doc, contains only one class
Javadoc HTML file : ShowClassPath.html
This HTML page doesn't contains any comment/documentation from upstream, only
auto-generated info. I see no added value to provide this package (and many
others -doc package seems to be on the same pattern)
-> Maybe you can 1) move all Javadoc to a common package like libanimal-
sniffer-java-doc 2) disable Javadoc modules with no added value 3) install
Javadoc to /api-<component>/ (see Java Policy [2]).
-> In animal-sniffer cas, valuable documentation is contained in src/site of
each module. Maybe you can generate/provide it ?

Regarding source tarball content, there is two binary files without source :
./animal-sniffer-enforcer-rule/src/it/setup-001/src/main/signatures/api-1-
SNAPSHOT.signature
./animal-sniffer-enforcer-rule/src/it/setup-002/src/main/signatures/api-2-
SNAPSHOT.signature
You should removed it and/or find source of them.

I haven't any other remark about your work, so we might be able to upload it
soon. Thanks for you work.

[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/x104.html

Cheers,
--
Damien
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:27 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org