Re: The evils of /usr/share/java/repository
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
packages, we set it up so that users *and* developers by default get the
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
of header files and libraries are in /usr/include and /usr/lib, and only
cases should the user have to add extra -I or _L flags - and certainly
using the*installed* current default version of a package. Why should
On 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.
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 for
packages that have been properly installed, unless they *want* (or need)
a particular version. The conclusion is that when a Java package is
default classpath (for all installed supported Java implementations)
be changed to include the installed package (unless the package is a
or otherwise "non-default" version).