Norm Jacobs wrote: > Jim Walker wrote: >> Petr Slechta wrote: >> >>> Hello! >>> >>> Comments from Paul Cunningham incorporated, second version of webrev >>> is available at http://cr.opensolaris.org/~pslechta/findbugs2/ >>> >>> >> >> Norm, >> >> What's the current sfw c-team policy on jar files including jar >> files like ant which are present elsewhere? >> >> Specifically: >> >> Can pkgs include anything they need even if it duplicates >> other jar files? >> > We don't want duplicates. If they require a different version than we > already ship and there are conflicts that require more than one > version to ship, then it's something we may have to live with. If > they are duplicating it because they don't want to test against what > we already have, then they need to go back and try and use what we > ship. I haven't looked at the ARC case for this (assuming one has > been filed yet), but this would be something that should have been > called out in the ARC case and I expect that the ARC would have > specifically commented on the duplicate software. The ant.jar file was mistake, it will not be part of the package. Sorry for the confusion!
>> Do jar files need to be built from source code? >> > Yes, they must be built from source. If this is true, then it makes porting of any Java application hard. Most of open source projects do not do that -- they just take the libraries and use them. It is Java, so it does not make any sense to compile them for different platforms -- the result would be always the same. Also we will not sustain/fix these libraries, so why to compile them? There is also question about sharing these libraries. As I said in previous mail, this was discussed on LSARC and I was hoping that this question is solved and closed. If not, should be LSARC reopened? Please look for LSARC discussion http://sac.eng.sun.com/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/642/mail especially around paragraph " Is there case precedent that indicates that all libraries should be versioned when installed? What happens for consumers of various version of: dom4j.jar, jaxen.jar, jsr-305.jar, et al listed there - presumably those won't be symlinks? Given the amount of java applications and scaffolding that's in the project pipeline, are we heading towards java jar hell? " Please let me know how should I continue... Petr > > -Norm >
