Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I still feel strongly the sentiment you quoted. A distribution should be a collection of software that works smoothly together. While it may support multiple versions of packages, we set it up so that users *and* developers by default get the "current stable" version of all packages, that they work together, and that developers can use installed "devel" packages without *having* to specify "give me version X.X of package P and version Y.Y of package Q". We assume that current stable and consistent versions of header files and libraries are in /usr/include and /usr/lib, and only in exceptional cases should the user have to add extra -I or _L flags - and certainly not when using the*installed* current default version of a package. Why should Java beOn Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 08:55:04PM +1000, jeff wrote:But I'll spare you that ranting; let's just say I think it's a horrifically bad idea to have a free-for-all in one's classpath.I tend to agree, though I should point out that the opposite view has support. For example, Per Bothner said in a previous thread, In Java we have a global namespace, so the user/developer should not have to specify classpaths etc by default. (http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2001/debian-java-200104/msg00014.html) I mention this because Per qualifies as something of an authority IMO but has not not appeared on this list lately.
different? A Java developer should not be asked to specify classpaths forpackages that have been properly installed, unless they *want* (or need) to specify a particular version. The conclusion is that when a Java package is installed the default classpath (for all installed supported Java implementations) should somehow be changed to include the installed package (unless the package is a "compatibility"
or otherwise "non-default" version).