Re: RFS: jffi-1.2.7 and jenkins-1.565.3-4
Le 06/04/2015 16:15, tony mancill a écrit :
> I'm wondering it would be less confusing/overall work if we go ahead and
> ship an empty jffi-native.jar in /usj + maven artifacts in the
> libjffi-java (arch:all) package, which in turn depends on the -jni package.
>
> Or put another way, do folks think there is a downside to doing that?
> It could bypass a potentially confusing step for package maintainers
> that depend on jffi, and it doesn't cost much to put them in.
That's a good strategy too, especially if there are many projects
depending on the jffi-native artifact.
It really depend on how the artifacts are used. If foo depends on
foo-native and all projects simply depend on foo, then removing the
foo-native dependency from foo is slightly better (one less empty file
installed by the package). If most projects depend on foo *and*
foo-native then having an empty foo-native artifact is easier for the
packagers (one less ignore rule).
Emmanuel Bourg
Reply to: