Bug#930362: new post: Help the Java Team Distribute your project!

2019-06-24 Thread Hans-Christoph Steiner

A version of this was reviewed and went out on the Java team blog a
while ago, before FOSDEM.

Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> Some comments on the post:
>> Include a build target in your build system that builds using only
>> libraries in Debian.
> I don't think this is a reasonable requirement. Upstream projects
> shouldn't adapt to N distributions, that's unsustainable. The best
> recommendation is to stick to mainstream build systems, and then
> Debian does the work of integrating these build systems with its
> libraries.

The idea here is recommendations, then upstream applies what is
reasonable.  I wasn't writing requirements.

>> Provide a minimal build target which uses as few build tricks as
>> possible, like Gradle plugins or custom hacks.
> This is too vague. What kind of plugins should be avoided and why? In
> the end we just disable them, so that's not really a problem.

I would either defer to what you want there, or just remove that line.
It is in the same spirit as above, just ideas rather than requirements.

>> Run Continuous Integration (CI) builds against Debian/testing, its so
>> easy these days with GitLab CI, Travis CI, etc.
> They probably do, but not against the system libraries, so that
> doesn't really help.

Exactly, the point is to test against Debian packages.  So this could be
changed to be more explicit:

Run Continuous Integration (CI) builds using all libraries directly from
Debian/testing, its so easy these days with GitLab CI, Travis CI, etc.

>> Help us package Java, and learn first hand!
> Are we requesting help to package OpenJDK?

I mean Java code in general.

Bug#930362: new post: Help the Java Team Distribute your project!

2019-06-11 Thread Laura Arjona Reina

Package: press
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-public...@lists.debian.org, debian-j...@lists.debian.org

Thanks Hans-Christoph Steiner for resuming the work on this post.
This bug is the continuation of the !16 merge request in Salsa [1], I have 
merged the work so far, and turned the post into a draft until we're all happy 
to publish it.

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/publicity-team/bits/merge_requests/16

I think it's better that we continue using the BTS and committing directly in 
the bits repo, so we don't need to maintain several merge requests.

The current draft is here:


I have not much time today to comment about the content (and I would like to 
provide patches) so I'm leaving this bug open for now and will come back to it 
soon, I hope.

I propose to publish it next week (17 to 23 Jun 2019) because we have just 
published a blog post and we had planned another one during this week.

Kind regards,
Laura Arjona Reina