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 , 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  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=705565
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.