Re: Summary of the id?as.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:03:50AM +1000, Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:44:00PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > To discuss:
> > -----------
> > * Should we allow library packages to provide different versions?
> > Like libxalan2 that provides both xalan1 and xalan2 jars.
> > * Should there be a script that automaticly fixes the symbolic
> > links in the /usr/share/java directory.
> > * Must programs also place their files in /usr/share/java.
> I'd have thought program-specific jars are by definition, not shared,
> and therefore do not belong on /usr/share?
/usr/share is for files that can be shared among machines (of different
architectures), not necessarily for files that can be shared among
I can imagine some packagers preferring to put .jar files that only they
care about into /usr/share/<package> rather than /usr/share/java,
though, to keep the namespace clean.
> > Default classpath:
> > ------------------
> > * This discusses the default classpath, except the classpath that
> > are needed by the jvm. Should there be any such thing?
> Or rather, *can* any such thing exist without:
> - breaking non-packaged programs which assume a clean classpath.
> - upsetting a lot of developers who like to make a clean-classpath
> assumption. I think most Apache coders fall into this category,
> because most (all?) Apache projects ignore the classpath, and use an
> Ant properties file to find jars. Perhaps other Apache people <waves
> to Marcus Crafter> can confirm/deny this.
I think there's got to be some kind of default classpath, even if it can
be overridden, otherwise programs without a startup script require the
user to set an environment variable before they can be used (see Debian
policy 10.9: "A program must not depend on environment variables to get
Colin Watson [email@example.com]