Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!news.spin.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Jan Henke Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.java Subject: Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-java@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-java-request@lists.debian.org Tue Sep 22 11:51:50 2015 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -6.1 Openpgp: id=DA4669F0581504874DC65C0E32C199AD20C88DFB User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WqVrmfwAImvP301rQ5BePPMgfFoDUKNqN" X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18674 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/560140C4.3090206@taujhe.de Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 60 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:51:32 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <560140C4.3090206@taujhe.de> X-Original-References: <56013554.6020608@apache.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:8359 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --WqVrmfwAImvP301rQ5BePPMgfFoDUKNqN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 22.09.2015 um 13:02 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Hi all, > > The src:java-common package currently contains: > - the default-jre/jdk meta packages defining the default Java per > architecture > - the update-java-alternatives mechanism > - the packaging policy for Java packages > - the Java FAQ > > Including the Java policy in java-common is a bit odd, it means Java > users automatically gets the policy documents on their systems, but thi= s > is only useful to people doing actual packaging work. I suggest moving > it to a separate java-policy package. The FAQ could also be moved later= > to the wiki. > > What do you think? > > Emmanuel Bourg > Hi Emmanuel, sounds like good idea to me. I think documentation should preferably always in a separate package. No need to install the documentation bits on a productive system. Jan Henke --WqVrmfwAImvP301rQ5BePPMgfFoDUKNqN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWAUDFAAoJEDLBma0gyI37ZGgQAKWDUp/4Ey0+LKFVsAOu0ju2 PdAIpsfTLXRq5SLBXWgLFY3LgC2P28NR1qY/7HPSiNVnh92iERDW4Pu7L0tZrx/V EpJSggiCMVXB7dKx6Y3trndZNOr4L1PA6bORD19G5qCdxybkUR0FOGHhehK5A03t 6v/UUTzjF1W9b3wqzDBk/znHKqT7Dec+yk7eYI+JS5aPTv93KAeX8xX0JhvjmRq7 HzTWDm1MAwT7oMsrqJQC/c1hhUxuV5c26XCQOwnkdvgfpe9ImfmjOepljLUV4+A0 iHuEXNnhuud4oZw+H2dJMX8+nKa5MC9APiTdf6MT2t2+3pe15hKvAUAB8f/Mh1vw ibk/7io3YV8ur9AxQkbY26xmUoJORBxjxZBwMG5Q5D98io+tXArV0hJDpeuSwz3+ ogmL4D9GFKAsg82puVbzn7zuyJWtgaBST5NXi9jd7/yfcHiWr80UthN4mzpcSFqr c4471hAD4Ye+FemW9CpWPVREwihvhw0IvMM4D1NdazZM8wRcHMu2QcjUWVayEDNU 6acmgNzly60iNesE6SsHMVkqw6dspRfx/DLjWIanduy1mW27d4ZD0ClBMUJTQQ3d MzzpMzluAAmIpkPKZqiNWLSh3sPswuAftIUw7suKVgugeLb21V+GGDWtsqO8qssX Vgsb56VeJm6vH7Yo49eV =Zgkk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WqVrmfwAImvP301rQ5BePPMgfFoDUKNqN--