>Isn't there a difference between jars that are shipped with
>the products
>and those that are simply used as part of development?
You could provide Sun jars with a binary product if the product
need them but you shouldn't provide them individually (Sun BCL)
>In Xerces-J we only use external jars for the latter (junit
>and ant) and
>for that reason they all live in a directory called tools. I would find
>the change to a directory called lib to be misleading in that case.
Having all jars in a common directory is fine when you want to avoid
duplicate jars among filesystem.
In jpackage project we provide RPM package for ant and junit which
are welcomed when you want to rebuild Xerces since they are allready
there and sus avoid the need to have them in a separate tarball.
Second advantage all OSS RPM are rebuilt from source so you're sure
you have the GOOD stuff in-use.
ie:
junit-source -> build -> junit-binary => /usr/share/java/junit-3.7.jar
/usr/share/java/junit.jar ->
/usr/share/java/junit-3.7.jar
ant-source -> build -> ant-binary => /usr/share/java/ant-1.4.1.jar
/usr/share/java/ant.jar ->
/usr/share/java/ant-1.4.1.jar
to build xerces in RPM you explicitly require junit and ant to
be present and set build properties to use /usr/share/java/junit.jar and
/usr/share/java/ant.jar
You could even require ant >= 1.4 or junit = 3.7
What give you a coherent system and ease the developpment task since the
packaging enforced the presence of mandatory external jars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
