"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> On 4 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > - <property name="dest.jardir.jar" value="${dest.jardir}/${name}.jar"/>
> > + <property name="dest.jardir.jar"
>value="${dest.jardir}/${name}-${component.version}.jar"/>
> >
>
> I thought we agreed that the binary distribution directory would have
> the version number in it, but not the JAR file name itself?
It didn't actually occur to me at the time - however, I don't recall any
agreement. That doesn't mean anything - I don't recall a lot of things,
it appears.
>
> Doing it this way makes everyone's build scripts fragile, because a change
> of version number means we all have to go update our build.properties if
> we're just using "latest and greatest" code from CVS. On the other hand,
> if you're using an official release directory, you only have to modify
> your "commons-collections.home" property and everything works fine if you
> also define:
>
> commons-collections.jar=${commons-collections.home}/commons-collections.jar
I certainly understand the argument - although in some sense, it's
driven by the the use of the build tool, isn't it? I mean, you could
have it such that
<path refid="classpath"/>
<fileset dir="${commons-collections.home}">
<include name="commons-collections-*.jar"/>
</fileset>
<fileset dir="${commons-beanutils.home}">
<include name="commons-beanutils-*.jar"/>
</fileset>
</path>
However, this not w/o risks, and I know that I personally would tend to
overlook removing the old versions as the version number was updated
over time, and would wind up w/ quite a mess.
The version number goes :)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
