Re: [Cp-tools-discuss] packaging cp-tools for debian

[Brian Jones]

Grzegorz Prokopski <address@hidden> writes:

> There was recent discussion about com.sun.javadoc. The problem was,
> that this stuff is not licensed under GPL+linking exception like
> all GNU Classpath is suppossed to be. It was suggested (not for the
> first time) that this part doesn't really belongs to gnu classpath,
> but it'd better be moved to cp-tools/gjdoc, where it is really used
> and where it belongs.
> http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/classpath/2002-August/002499.html
> I belive I've read some older discussion about moving javadoc
> stuff to cp-tools project (don't have link ATM).

Yes, I forget who asked about this recently but I gave full permission
to move the com.sun... interfaces for javadoc into cp-tools.

> Some technical questions (if you want to give me some advice):
> - ATM I have created separate packages for cp-tools (javap, javah,
> serialver) and separate for gjdoc. Do you think that it is right?
> Maybe it would be better to have just one classpath-tools
> package with ALL this stuff in it? what about automakejar then?
> what about texinfo-doclet? should they all be in ONE package?
> - I needed some names for javap, javah i serialver, so I added
> cp- prefix (cp-$origname) and put it into /usr/bin/
> do you think it is OK?
> - oh - and I couldn't get gjdoc Makefile working, so I just
> jikes `find . -name \*.java`
> fastjar `find . -name \*.class`
> Any objections?

I believe Debian is fond of creating some weirdness in /etc and
/usr/bin such that if you install more than one version of 'vi' for
instance that you can configure to a particular version.  That is
probably how these tools should be viewed as well is my guess.  On my
system, I would rather they had the traditional names of javah, javap,
javadoc, but these can just be shell script wrappers for whatever.

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>