On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 11:21 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote: > Hi, > Pure neutral zero on this one, so I guess I'm not being particularly > helpful. On one hand I hate the renaming thing because it feels like > an ugly hack and it makes life more difficult for downstream > packagers.
Please, please, please, keep downstream packagers in mind when making decisions like this. > On the other hand, we haven't had any DBCP-related > complaints (besides the one from the downstream repackager last month) I can't say how big of a problem building that jar is at the present time on Gentoo given our build systems. Tomcat is one of the few java apps that we are unable to build all aspects of. Due to repackage sources, not binaries, from other projects into the final binary result. I have no foreseeable solution to building that jar on Gentoo at this time. I have discussed it extensively with others, and we are likely to have to do some package specific hacks or etc to build that jar. In the mean time, those needing that jar are having to fetch it from the a binary release. I would think re-packaging sources from other Java apps into other binaries, jars etc would be far from ideal. However if it was re-packaging, overloading, or etc binaries, that's another story. Much less of an issue. Otherwise I would suggest Tomcat package any sources used during compilation. Even if they are sources from another project. Instead of pulling them down via ant at build time if they are not present. Thanks Also FYI, we had a 0 day release of Tomcat 5.5.20 on Gentoo :) Along with a 0 day release of mod_jk 1.2.19 as well. Both are still are keyworded experimental/unstable. In 30 or so days will be stable barring any major bug reports. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
