Path: csiph.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Markus Koschany Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.java,linux.debian.bugs.dist Subject: Re: Packaging javax.json (Was: Bug#800762: Java problem when upgrading pixelmed) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:40:04 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: Andreas Tille , Debian Java List X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-java-request@lists.debian.org Tue Apr 26 20:30:39 2016 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -5 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UO2TRMEOWWN9sjpAXsO9oM3eFbspEs5KJ" X-Sa-Exim-Scanned: No (on richard.fcube.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/19395 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/571FCFDD.2040407@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 102 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: 800762@bugs.debian.org X-Original-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:30:21 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <571FCFDD.2040407@debian.org> X-Original-References: <5719D7C0.3050308@debian.org> <20160422230053.GG19377@an3as.eu> <571B5016.70906@debian.org> <20160423113659.GK19377@an3as.eu> <571B88A1.7040606@debian.org> <20160423151958.GN19377@an3as.eu> <617720625.26577711.1461564275800.JavaMail.zimbra@irisa.fr> <571DCD22.3050903@debian.org> <20160426140655.GK32498@an3as.eu> <571F799F.5030102@apache.org> <20160426185451.GO32498@an3as.eu> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:9068 linux.debian.bugs.dist:734704 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --UO2TRMEOWWN9sjpAXsO9oM3eFbspEs5KJ Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="AH5IHCG4UomB3TWAnqK590uE3xIqm3xbN" From: Markus Koschany To: Andreas Tille , Debian Java List Cc: 800762@bugs.debian.org Message-ID: <571FCFDD.2040407@debian.org> Subject: Re: Packaging javax.json (Was: Bug#800762: Java problem when upgrading pixelmed) References: <5719D7C0.3050308@debian.org> <20160422230053.GG19377@an3as.eu> <571B5016.70906@debian.org> <20160423113659.GK19377@an3as.eu> <571B88A1.7040606@debian.org> <20160423151958.GN19377@an3as.eu> <617720625.26577711.1461564275800.JavaMail.zimbra@irisa.fr> <571DCD22.3050903@debian.org> <20160426140655.GK32498@an3as.eu> <571F799F.5030102@apache.org> <20160426185451.GO32498@an3as.eu> In-Reply-To: <20160426185451.GO32498@an3as.eu> --AH5IHCG4UomB3TWAnqK590uE3xIqm3xbN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 26.04.2016 um 20:54 schrieb Andreas Tille: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:22:23PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> Le 26/04/2016 16:06, Andreas Tille a =C3=A9crit : >> >>> I have no free capacity to do large scale packaging >>> of new dependencies. So if somebody volunteers to package javax.json= >>> (which might be interesting also for other projects) I might care for= >>> pixelmed. Otherwise I'll keep the package in its current state or ev= en >>> remove it from Debian. >> >> As a reminder, you did package jsonp :) >> >> git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-java/libjsonp-java.git >> >> The package builds fine, it just needs an ITP and a proper copyright r= eview. >=20 > It was even ITPed #811074 and is now uploaded. May I exchange the time= > I've spent into this against some time people help me finalising > libnetlib-java which is quite important for me and I'm desperately > trying since January ... Hi Andreas, I've already put libnetlib-java on my todo list but it has a rather low priority at the moment (possibly in May). It is probably not that difficult but I will very likely start from scratch again because that's a lesson I've learned from my packaging adventures with the lombok-* stack; it is sometimes easier to start again than trying to understand the existing packaging. I think it's rather difficult to convince people to package something which has no concrete value for them. I wouldn't try to hard here because there are more pressing (Java) matters. I'm also not a great fan of packaging something because it could be of value in the future. The fact is there is nobody who cares enough or would need those packages at the moment. The risk is that the new dependencies get outdated very quickly because nobody feels responsible for them. Careful here. Pixelmed isn't broken, so there is no need to rush this. If you or someone else from the Med team are not motivated enough to maintain Pixelmed, I'd suggest to focus on something else for now and to come back to this package later. Regards, Markus --AH5IHCG4UomB3TWAnqK590uE3xIqm3xbN-- --UO2TRMEOWWN9sjpAXsO9oM3eFbspEs5KJ 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 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJXH8/dXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRBQ0YzRDA4OEVGMzJFREVGNkExQTgzNUZE OUFEMTRCOTUxM0I1MUU0AAoJENmtFLlRO1HkutQP/2+Be3vP1+9cwjsgGPe3G5GF vP7/L8gtc5MyLVY3Hv/QcLEFFDmHZkXStNhz5ZxPIryyGU/c+OJgSSgZRbrzKFTH wWPGb5EKka5aS8NYhgyWAmaKOGyRB5deuFlg1QiBmA2eRWtb/C8wceIXLK1PDupB jgqLjZrLcFwzComQeCyNC9mNYZTwuiTMyKujTnuIHeIshz67Czc5T5fewNChG2uc WM0b4O0Uq2ofbON9KwUDfsy08OQeyDlggWQeCwO+TyfIS1ZxR7pKwB5vPeBge4MP Plpfs3lEjrSviR/cIPvjCyXHsy65CclscQLPKyc74Mwg36zsC2IiIid2LxeV4R7/ eKCsDKPcO6xxzkO2WT4ZJa2xWLys3fvfgzWAepHVGBOttcoy1w1xpZYf+0qEBLwr XyFqJilzg6yXn2yr0BaxL6lzvID1cU5w1g6kr4Wdih6xtYXoklwaIdis8C23xCKm k5LwcEOmy1PWyDJWmK4g1kRc/fobzCjJ8EmUUD/fJl7+J3crBIaHaEv+whdKMaxi oopV+l1Mvm+twx82qinMRWmmrOmESMNm/tNZz2v23CMojxb574oQcmb4N0duOVh+ li8Sj/WiqOXC3FSu8L3IPFgPed47wQCQBaGCCbQmh46L4eyf7czOXxLfhs5dScWw zXsonuEAmEVj52T6T5JG =fqil -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UO2TRMEOWWN9sjpAXsO9oM3eFbspEs5KJ--