On 8 Nov 2001, Kevin A. Burton wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I have noticed that almost ALL packages include external .jars in their > > internal lib directories. This *MUST* stop. Yesterday. Last year. > > Don't be so extreme... nothing is black and white.
I will be extreme, as this is wrong, pure and simple. And I will file bugs this weekend(need to write a script to parse Contents(I have one started)). > This is a practice that is unfortunately common in the Java world. Common does not make it right. > Can I debian package require a specific version of another package? > > Specifically if I have a package foo can it require *only* libbar-1.1.3.deb ??? Certainly. It's what I'm doing for the jboss package. > Due to the WORA nature of Java applications, a lot of projects assume they are > the only package management system in existence. For example a lot of the > Jakarta projects ship with a whole bunch of .jars which are both incompatible > across projects and in their own ./lib. This is one of the main flaws of java. It assumes it is the only thing around, and nothing else exists. There is no integration whatsoever with anything not java. If you have a project, that has non-java elements, you are left all by yourself, when integrating them. Additionally, ears are prime example of java packaging gone wrong. > > Lots of 'external' jars are not redistributable. You can't even have them in > > the source package. > > This is a separate issue for debian-legal. It's not a separate issue. We still are not allowed to distribute these jars, in any form. > I seriously hope that we don't have packages with non-free libs. If this > happens it would be a big issue :( It already is an issue. Look for mail.jar and activation.jar. Those are SCSL from sun. Bad mojo. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
