Michael Koch wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:55:28PM +0100, Paul Cager wrote: >> I am preparing a new upload of JTA to fix some bugs. >> >> The source package is "jta" and the binary package is "jta". Should I >> change the binary package to be "libjta-java", or leave it alone? >> >> * Jta has no reverse dependencies. >> * I'll be adding a "-doc" binary package, so it will end up in the >> new queue anyway. > > Is jta only a library package or does it include a standalone tool? > > In the first case you should rename it. In the later case I would > prefer to keep the name. This would be the same situation as for ant or > checkstyle.
It doesn't provide an executable in /usr/bin (unlike ant), but it does provide a useful Main class in the Jar (like checkstyle). So I think that implies keep it as "jta". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
