Bug#544546: reassign 544546 to fop, retitle 544546 to should provide libfop-java

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

It seems I missed this mail.

Michael Koch, le Wed 09 Sep 2009 18:39:41 +0200, a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:06:41PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > reassign 544546 fop 
> > retitle 544546 should provide libfop-java
> 
> Why? There is no real need to for this. Any packages can depend on fop
> and be done.

Sure, but it's common practice in Debian to separately package libraries
and programs. For instance, fop notably depends on X libraries, which
libfop-java wouldn't, and that can be a noticeable difference for
application servers which would want to make use of fop.

> The reason why it was called fop and not libfop-java was that
> it is not only a library but also a program.

Sure. I'm just suggesting to split the current fop binary into fop and
libfop-java.

Samuel