1. As Jeff says, it won't work. 2. It violates the terms of the JDK license, most likely.
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jeff MAURY <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think you should as there are probably some differences between > versions of the JDK > > Regards > Jeff MAURY > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So far I've managed the few situations where tools.jar (included in the >> JDK) is needed by using the deprecated system scope and point at a local >> tools.jar file. Up until now it's just been used in build time by plugins, >> but now I've run into a case where it's an actual dependency and therefore >> it could cause issues. >> >> Normally, artifacts should be in the repo but I'm wondering if there are >> any problems adding this one to an internal repo? Is it platform neutral >> for example? >> It's a strictly internal repo so I think we can ignore any license problems >> by adding it to the repo. >> >> /Anders >> > > > > -- > Jeff MAURY > > > "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually > working and scaling. > - Bjarne Stroustrup > > http://www.jeffmaury.com > http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com > http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
