Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: tony Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.java Subject: Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:20:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: Emmanuel Bourg X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-java-request@lists.debian.org Tue Sep 22 15:14:16 2015 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-12 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18677 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20150922151358.GA29631@dorf.mancill.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 56 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: debian-java@lists.debian.org X-Original-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:13:58 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <20150922151358.GA29631@dorf.mancill.com> X-Original-References: <56013554.6020608@apache.org> <5601694C.3010709@gambaru.de> <56016CCB.8090108@apache.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:8363 --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:59:23PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 22/09/2015 16:44, Markus Koschany a =E9crit : >=20 > > I agree with Thorsten that this would imply a packaging overhead for > > only a little gain. Although I think that splitting the documentation > > would be cleaner, it is probably not worth the effort for a few KB. No > > strong preferences from my side though. >=20 > Thank you for the feedback. I'm suggesting this change mainly for a > better separation of concerns, the space saved is obviously > insignificant. For example a separated policy makes it possible to > upload an updated default-jre package in experimental and then publish > policy changes in unstable without waiting for java-common to transition > to unstable. I also believe the benefits outweight the cost of having another package in the archive. We may want to iterate over policy frequently, and do so without triggering upgrades for every installed copy of java-common. In that case, a separate package may take a bit more disk on the mirrors, but it could also result in less overall network bandwidth. It would also be nice if the policy package was named something obvious, like java-policy. :) Cheers, tony --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWAXA2AAoJECHSBYmXSz6W5AoP/1/QMvsq/J6GzEVC1IGxuOUH 2dRc34/HFP9bE8+RXJZBZ+8wrFrEldZRTCbbd3J/BHYovkNm+uY3pCiG8tVb39ah HH7kQY+rb1zsyGJGdhTi5c2yOLOBGehgu6mtaNaOrTX7qQws6M9eKtDYi74HOEs3 OvfoZ44F7YOOwZkESSjSFoCUFcCiarCkFREsCR/dRhItktdr8/pxlwzM+qSQftKF u5pbedoSriy/2TH0tZtRyqI56JN89xu3+eglyf62wa/6muQ7ecBCplddDp0wbt6u P4sJf1ENUbaJtzfe7UrJABr5OM7p5heN8hQ0USZA40jPkvvjfSvDtco3ZH+jJae4 avC+mt7dmvrHrUHavHi4UFu5C/wFawTQrUqgL5lvE28rmC3ZvT0Uh6dtJza9ZEoJ cOOgNtCGe0zUAu0s6Y0PyIW0Vvbxm3mIIsbQ5SWdrBZWbUNscR3pF/xO/Oo/Rrx6 ATfLHp7S83wodR5vazVTzaZnNLlehvNxGz4e6YuT9wY9x0ONoCy4Atzyq0qwYWOn QMDyssYguxh8UVhrpKv7MTpAzcsPJhIMYYltctmXuI+bihzoGQL5iw7Ojpb8b7Lz z9/kzAX/L0YejY/BjT57chdS5MIiJKRIMH4PAGJQiSL8VryL4HsXmzndKNZK+AZW 4jtNrH6rYUa7hWg2A0BV =SanY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C--