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

Re: Java packages, guidelines, ...



On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> However removing the version would make the collision danger (the fact
> this thread is about) worse, not simpler,

At the moment, I don't think there's any danger: because the versionless 
symlinks are packaged, there's an explicit rpm level conflict which prevents 
silent collisions from happening.

> > find_jar in java-functions falls back to unversioned jar if it can't find
> > the requested versioned jar [0], so not even things that do "find-jar
> > foo-1.2.3" would break if foo-1.2.3.jar would not be there but foo.jar
> > would.
> >
> > Because installing multiple packages that own the same versionless
> > symlink pointing to different files would result in a conflict, we can't
> > really do it anyway.
>
> I've always assumed that in that case the packager/distro would drop the
> symlink from the compat package.

I think all cases like this have been implemented by changing the compat 
package's %{name} by prepending "compat-" or the like to it or by suffixing 
it with a number derived from the version, just like is done for all other 
packages out there.  Ditto jar names.

So to summarize, I'm still strongly in favour of dropping the versioned jars 
altogether.


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