https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43114
Jesse Glick <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED Target Milestone|1.7.1 |1.8.0 --- Comment #17 from Jesse Glick <[email protected]> 2009-02-12 14:43:41 PST --- I have tried to do a better fix in revision 743910 ( https://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&rev=743910 ). The real problem was that while javac would create a package-info.class whenever package-info.java had any annotations (even RetentionPolicy.SOURCE!), packages with no annotations at all - i.e just a replacement for package.html when creating Javadoc - did not result in package-info.class files. This confused up-to-date checks. With the new code, if package-info.java is included in the list of source files passed to the compiler and javac generates package-info.class, then nothing further is done. But if it is missing (or out of date), a placeholder package-info.class is created that is equivalent to that which (JDK 5) javac would create for a package-info.java with only SOURCE annotations. This is effectively a no-op for the JVM but makes <javac> work predictably: *.java is compiled during an incremental build iff the corresponding *.class is missing or old, and this works the same for package-info.java as for any other *.java. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
