On 01/02/2014 04:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Package: src:closure-compiler
> Version: 20130227+dfsg1-4
> Severity: minor
> 
> Howdy, thank you for packaging the Closure compiler.
> 
> Searching APT for a package containing the Closure compiler command for
> compiling ECMAScript, I expect to find the package in the “web” section by
> the name ‘closure-compiler’.
> 
> I shouldn't need to care that it's implemented in Java, and am not
> expecting a command-line program to be classified in the library packages.
> 
> The source package should produce separate binary packages:
> [...]

Hi Ben,

The upload of 20130227+dfsg1-4 Provides "closure-compiler" so at least
it can be installed by this name now.

There is some discussion regarding this topic towards the end of #705565
[0], and as I understand the general consensus, developers aren't that
enthusiastic about an empty binary package.  I don't have a strong
opinion one way or the other as to whether being able to find the
package by section outweighs the need to prevent the creation of empty
binary packages.  However, given the recent discussion on debian-devel
about trying to avoid and/or collapse small packages into larger
packages, I tend to think that having the Provides is preferred, at
least for now.  It also has the benefit of not putting more burden on
the FTP team to view an upload that must go through the NEW queue.

Thanks,
tony

[0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=705565

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Reply via email to