Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>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.
>
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2001/debian-java-200104/msg00014.html)
>
>I mention this because Per qualifies as something of an authority
>IMO but has not not appeared on this list lately.
>
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
versions of
packages, we set it up so that users *and* developers by default get the
"current stable"
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
versions
of header files and libraries are in /usr/include and /usr/lib, and only
in exceptional
cases should the user have to add extra -I or _L flags - and certainly
not when
using the*installed* current default version of a package. Why should
Java be
different? A Java developer should not be asked to specify classpaths for
packages that have been properly installed, unless they *want* (or need)
to specify
a particular version. The conclusion is that when a Java package is
installed the
default classpath (for all installed supported Java implementations)
should somehow
be changed to include the installed package (unless the package is a
"compatibility"
or otherwise "non-default" version).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
