On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:03:50AM +1000, Jeff Turner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:44:00PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > To discuss: > > ----------- > > > > * Should we allow library packages to provide different versions? > > Like libxalan2 that provides both xalan1 and xalan2 jars. > > * Should there be a script that automaticly fixes the symbolic > > links in the /usr/share/java directory. > > * Must programs also place their files in /usr/share/java. > > I'd have thought program-specific jars are by definition, not shared, > and therefore do not belong on /usr/share?
/usr/share is for files that can be shared among machines (of different architectures), not necessarily for files that can be shared among programs. I can imagine some packagers preferring to put .jar files that only they care about into /usr/share/<package> rather than /usr/share/java, though, to keep the namespace clean. > > Default classpath: > > ------------------ > > > > * This discusses the default classpath, except the classpath that > > are needed by the jvm. Should there be any such thing? > > Or rather, *can* any such thing exist without: > > - breaking non-packaged programs which assume a clean classpath. > - upsetting a lot of developers who like to make a clean-classpath > assumption. I think most Apache coders fall into this category, > because most (all?) Apache projects ignore the classpath, and use an > Ant properties file to find jars. Perhaps other Apache people <waves > to Marcus Crafter> can confirm/deny this. I think there's got to be some kind of default classpath, even if it can be overridden, otherwise programs without a startup script require the user to set an environment variable before they can be used (see Debian policy 10.9: "A program must not depend on environment variables to get reasonable defaults"). -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
