Home Original page

Re: api docs, java source

On Sat Dec 19 15:57, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > See above, policy (I thought?) says that we don't provide stripped
> > libraries, since in Java it doesn't give much of a performance
> > improvement, but it's very useful for things like debugging and (iirc?)
> > eclipse completion.
> 
> I could not find anything about this in the current policy. My last
> draft did however mention this as a "should" for java code, but not JNI
> which was not mentioned at all. In the second draft (that I am working
> on) JNI "must" be stripped like regular shared libraries.
> 
> Should I bump that should on compiling with "debug enabled" for java
> code to a must?

JNI should definitely be stripped (and isn't what we are talking about
here). I'm happy with mandating -glines,source or similar.

> This is in the current draft and will also be in the new draft, though
> with a slight modification that allows for api-$part as well. This is
> the current practice for libservlet2.4-java - which generates a separate
> javadoc for its servlet and its jsp jar. I believed it made sense to
> make this separation - while jsp depends on servlet they are two
> different specifications.

sure, that's sensible

> On a related note: The current (as well as the future) draft currently
> specifies that the api should be installed in
> /usr/share/doc/${libpackage}/api and not
> /usr/share/doc/${docpackage}/api (though it can do so by simply placing
> a symlink from ${libpackage}/api to ${docpackage}/api).

Indeed, that's what, I think, we want. It makes it easier  to find if
they are in a consistent location.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: