> > I decided long ago not to use anybody else's binaries if I could > > help it. I want my system to be auditable. For a long time I had > > to use Adobe's Flash & Oracle's JRE, but no longer. > > Sure, and that's why we use LFS. > > But things like this - Java bytecode being platform independent and > all, it's likely that any given release of a library like Junit is > compiled exactly *once*, by the person creating a release to upload to > the Maven repo. It's not going to be recompiled by different distros, > for different target architectures. It's going to be built once by the > project maintainer, published to the repo, and then the developers > move on to developing the next version.
Junit is/was in BLFS with instructions, so I built it myself, satisfying my auditability rule. That's what I/we do. ;-) > > > All statically linked into the downloaded package I believe, > > bloating them and affecting performance. > > Nope. There's no such thing as static-linking in the Java world. At > most, an unnecessary jar file sitting in the classpath will be a > slight overhead in that it needs to be searched when loading classes. I wasn't clear. When you said "download it" I took that to mean LO. I'm pretty sure LO, FF, TB distributed binaries all are statically linked. I like to follow the old Linux tradition of being usable on older H/W, so I want things using shared libraries and minimizing the RAM commitment. I may have BUILT LO/FF/TB on an i7 for efficiency, but I expect everything to RUN on any i686 I may want to put this system on. > I've never built LO, so I can't give a definitive answer to that. But > JUnit is just a testing framework (it's utterly ubiquitous in Java > development), so if you're not running unit tests for LO, it's > unlikely to be important. LO will use extensions programmed in Java. I know it's a lot to ask, but I'd like it to test them during installation. 8-P > Ah, just went back and saw this earlier post of yours. Yes, a symlink > to that file should be fine. Done. Just in case it matters, I think I'll rebuild LO --with-junit. I can do that while I'm lying on the couch watching TV. > The file you've got is named according to the common Java conventions > - package name, version, and the SNAPSHOT suffix indicating it's not > an official release (which would just be junit-4.11.jar). So presumably nothing is going to use those as named and they ALL should be symlinked? Thanks, Simon. This helps with some uncertainties. -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.com - A fast, anti-spam email service. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
