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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature