Hi,
Daniel Pocock said:
B. I doubt that such a badly named package would be of enough interest /
quality for Debian packaging (but I might be wrong, I don't know any
example)
There are examples like this. It has been argued by some developers
that to compile using some toolchains (e.g.
On 16/01/13 09:05, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
Hi,
Daniel Pocock said:
B. I doubt that such a badly named package would be of enough interest /
quality for Debian packaging (but I might be wrong, I don't know any
example)
There are examples like this. It has been argued by some
On 14/01/2013 21:25, Tomasz Muras wrote:
On 01/14/2013 09:16 PM, Eric Lavarde wrote:
Hello,
On 14/01/13 19:48, Daniel Pocock wrote:
A few projects exist without following this convention, and sooner or
later somebody may try to package one of them.
According to the Java Language
Package: java-common
Severity: important
Version: 0.47
I just had a read over the policy
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/
One thing not mentioned is the use of namespaces/package names in Java
The vast majority of projects use unique namespaces, specifically, using
a
On 14/01/13 21:16, Eric Lavarde wrote:
Hello,
On 14/01/13 19:48, Daniel Pocock wrote:
A few projects exist without following this convention, and sooner or
later somebody may try to package one of them.
According to the Java Language Specification, using a domain name is a
suggested
On 01/14/2013 09:16 PM, Eric Lavarde wrote:
Hello,
On 14/01/13 19:48, Daniel Pocock wrote:
A few projects exist without following this convention, and sooner or
later somebody may try to package one of them.
According to the Java Language Specification, using a domain name is a
suggested
Hello,
On 14/01/13 19:48, Daniel Pocock wrote:
A few projects exist without following this convention, and sooner or
later somebody may try to package one of them.
According to the Java Language Specification, using a domain name is a
suggested convention and not a mandatory obligation.
7 matches
Mail list logo
