Groups > linux.debian.maint.java > #12933

Re: javadocs

Path	csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.java
Subject	Re: javadocs
Date	Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:00:01 +0100
Message-ID	<KhN9T-jZa-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<KhsoN-6Gk-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <KhN9T-jZa-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-java-request@lists.debian.org Wed Feb 19 07:57:51 2025
Old-Return-Path	<sre4ever@free.fr>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight	using cached result; rate: -5.5
MIME-Version	1.0
User-Agent	Webmail Free/1.6.10
X-Sender	sre4ever@free.fr
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
X-Mailing-List	<debian-java@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/23646
List-ID	<debian-java.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/38f127c1160ec290b5ed493e1202789e@free.fr
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	30
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date	Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:57:35 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID	<38f127c1160ec290b5ed493e1202789e@free.fr>
X-Original-References	<0ea7376fbe4c5cab27b05beae6b0d7af@free.fr> <c38a2711-963b-4680-8afe-d46f66ca7d43@xs4all.nl>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:12933

Show key headers only | View raw

Hi,

Le 2025-02-18 10:59, Sebastiaan Couwenberg a écrit :
> 
> I doubt those "other maintainers" have the discipline to target their 
> uploads reintroducing -java-doc packages to experimental where they'll 
> land after NEW processing.

I'm not sure this is much of an issue. Maybe you could elaborate why you 
think so?

> I also wouldn't appreciate having to drop the reintroduced -java-doc 
> package again when its breaks with the next JDK update.
> 
> People who value java-doc package should maintain them separately to 
> not bother the maintainers who don't care for them. The separately 
> maintained gcc -doc packages might serve as an example.

I'm not against the principle, but this isn't workable for javadocs. 
gcc-N-doc has separate source files and its own build system (and even a 
different, non-DFSG license). javadoc source is embedded in source code, 
and its build more or less tightly integrated with the binaries build 
system. Having different maintainers for those would mean duplicating 
the entire source code as a new source package, which is obviously not 
something that would be reasonable to do.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Plissonneau Duquène

Back to linux.debian.maint.java | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

javadocs Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr> - 2025-02-18 10:50 +0100
  Re: javadocs Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2025-02-18 12:50 +0100
    Re: javadocs Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr> - 2025-02-19 09:30 +0100
  Re: javadocs Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr> - 2025-02-19 09:00 +0100
    Re: javadocs Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr> - 2025-02-19 09:40 +0100

csiph-web