Re: RFC: JVM Registry
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 02:35:41PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
CUT.
My mail have not arrived to the list yet so I reply to this mail
instead. Because something just strucked me!
The problem I was talking about was that some packages can
provide and depend on specific jar packages, and maybe with
a specific version of that package.
So why not just "Provides: foo.jar, bar.jar" and then depend on the
jar files. What do you think about that? Yes we will have a lot of
"virtual packages" but this will also solve some issues.
We do now have the problem of versioning. But is it possible to
"Provide: foo.jar (= 1.2.3)".
If not that should be a great advantage.
The tool will just have to look at the package field and see what
it depends on, and add the apropriate jars to the classpath.
I can write such a tool and put it into java-common if you like. :)
With this alternative we almost have your repository, almost.
Regards,
// Ola
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 584 36 LINKÖPING |
| +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: