Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_Plissonneau_Duqu=C3=A8ne?= Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.java Subject: Re: javadocs Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:00:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-java-request@lists.debian.org Wed Feb 19 07:57:51 2025 Old-Return-Path: 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: archive/latest/23646 List-ID: List-URL: 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> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:12933 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