https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43114
--- Comment #20 from Marek Novotny <[email protected]> 2009-07-01 03:36:33 PST --- (In reply to comment #17) > 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 But if it is missing (or out of date), a placeholder 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. When is 1.8.0 planned? I can't find out the date. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
