On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:41:24PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 09.07.2018 um 23:35 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> > Le 09/07/2018 à 23:29, Markus Koschany a écrit :
> > 
> >> We should really aim for the simplest solution. Actually I don't see any
> >> need to patch the javadoc tool because we could easily solve this at the
> >> packaging level. Just replace the embedded jquery library with symlinks
> >> to Debian's system library and let openjdk depend on jquery. Problem 
> >> solved.
> > 
> > Sounds fine.
> > 
> > Or remove these mostly unused documentation packages we spend too much
> > time fixing or discussing after each new JDK hiccup ;)
> 
> Yeah, brutal but there is truth in it. I would really like to keep the
> current level of support for Java documentation but I agree when it
> becomes too painful and we waste too much time to fix such issues, we
> should simply drop it.

I'm in favor of dropping the -java-doc packages completely and instead
using our time and effort to improve the state of our runtime libraries,
toolchain and application packages.  (It would be a different story if
we were developing a distribution for Java developers who don't have
ready access to other sources of documentation, but I have a hard time
imagining that our users would prefer javadocs over functioning and
secure libraries.)

> Well, now we have to convince doku to implement this solution, or at
> least to accept it, without closing the bug report again. Volunteers?

Hmm... I choose to believe that the bug (we're talking about [1],
right?) was mass-closed along with everything else that was open against
src:openjdk-9.  It seems like a reasonable and very "Debian" approach to
avoid embedding an available system library.  If we really want javadoc,
we could resubmit (preferably with a patch).

Cheers,
tony

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=883981

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to