Petr Slechta wrote: > > 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? " > > > Currently, tomcat - which is already in OpenSolaris - internally uses lot of jar files without actually compiling them from source
- Sriram
