On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:53:18AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > I don't like it at all. I like having the java code in it's own module > so that I can check it out directly into my java tree - otherwise you > have to mess with symlinks (I'm on a mission of finding whoever started > the practice of setting the classpath variable explicitely for every > single java package installed and removing their medulla oblongata > through their eyesockets with a rusty hedgecutter).
Hmmm, well you may not like it, but it is increasingly standard practice, and not dissimilar to the way that new software is added to operating systems like Plan 9, it also works more nicely for .jar files. > Also, I don't see the point of checking in compiled javadocs, and > especially binary class files, into cvs. I wasn't proposing that these things are checked in, merely that the directories are there for stuff to go into when generated from the Makefile. > > That looks reasonable. I'd rather you named the build dir "build" > > instead of "classes", it is fairly standard. > > One java tree, one java tree, one java tree. I really don't think this is practical, for example, it makes upgrading software a pain in the butt, and there is no established place on any operating system to place this mythical unified Java tree. Trying to pretend that a practice exists when it doesn't will only make things more of a pain for everyone. > > Changing the package name from Freenet has been brought up before. This > > would be a good time to do that. > > This otoh is a good idea. It should be "freenet". Why? -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020102/8843b70f/attachment.pgp>
