[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: advantage of /usr/share/java/repository over /usr/share/java?

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> > Having a "repository" subdirectory doesn't do much to keep
> > /usr/share/java clean, especially if lots of apps put jar files there.
> Yes, jars are messy, hence the "repository" subdirectory which is supposed to stay clean (following the hierarchical naming of classes).


Repository is NOT good.  No way in hell.  This is the most lame assed idea

I see you have never had to have 2 versions of a jar installed at the same
time.  If everything is unpacked in /usr/share/java/repository, then there is
no way that multiple versions could be installed.  This is one of debian's
fine points.

We can have several versions of a runtime library installed, but limit new
developement(in lots of cases, but not all), to only using the latest version
of the libary.

With java, things are different.  There is no distinction between runtime and
development support(well, sorta).  A .class contains not only the code, but
also the method declarations, and the same command(import) is used to 'link' a
java 'binary' to a 'library', and to include it's definitions.

Also, there is another annoying bug, that I have discovered.  It is
because of this repository, that I found it.  However, the bug in and of 
itself is not the fault of the repository.  When using jikes to
generated Makefile dependencies, if it finds any bare .class files,
it'll try to look for the .java to match.  This fails, with the unpacked 
classes in the repository.

/usr/bin/jikes -nowrite +E +M -d ../classes/java -classpath <...> Foo.java

Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL++++ P+ L++++ !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>        Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E    63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA  3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-----END PGP INFO-----

Reply to: