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

Re: RFS: libspark-java

Hi Tony,

I had more of a think about this, and looked at some other packages that
use libservlet2.5. They use the versioned jar files. Given the version
is also in the package name I think this actually makes sense - the
package won't work with some later libservlet* anyway without updating
the dependencies.

I'm now in favour of your change to libservlet2.5-java, since it's the
more recent API. It's supported by Tomcat 6 and Jetty 6, so I don't
think it's likely to cause anyone a problem. Going with the older
version is more likely to need changes sooner.


On 08/12/10 01:54, tony mancill wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Yes, I was building the package with that change to the CLASSPATH.  I'd like to
> ask the debian-java list if there is an opinion regarding whether such a change
> is warranted.  It seems preferable to leave the CLASSPATH as it is with the
> unversioned jars, but also to build against the new libservlet.
> Is there an upcoming transition after which libservlet2.5 deliver the
> unversioned servlet-api and jsp-api jars?
> Thank you,
> Tony
> On 12/07/2010 10:29 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>> Hello Tony,
>> Thanks for the offer to sponsor this package. The change to
>> debian/copyright looks fine to me. I didn't use libservlet2.5-java as
>> the current non-versioned jars (/usr/share/java/jsp-api.jar and
>> /usr/share/java/servlet-api.jar) come from the libservlet2.4-java
>> package. I believe changing to 2.5 would require the following CLASSPATH
>> line in debian/rules instead of the current one.
>> export CLASSPATH :=
>> /usr/share/java/servlet-api-2.5.jar:/usr/share/java/jsp-api-2.1.jar
>> It certainly doesn't compile in my pbuilder without that change. I don't
>> mind which option you go with - it shouldn't make any difference, as I
>> think the parts of the servlet and jsp api being used are the same in
>> 2.4 and 2.5. Whichever option you choose, feel free to update in svn and
>> go ahead with the upload.
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew

Reply to: