On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 12:35:57PM +0200, Thomas Girard wrote:
> Barry Hawkins wrote:
> [...]
> >I think you make some excellent points here. In your initial message, I
> >thought
> >you were advocating the dropping of version numbers and not trying to do
> >anything
> >else, which I would consi
Barry Hawkins wrote:
[...]
I think you make some excellent points here. In your initial message, I thought
you were advocating the dropping of version numbers and not trying to do
anything
else, which I would consider reckless and unwise. Adopting a solution for
languages
that have a longer h
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 02:07:31PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 18. April 2006 22:23 schrieb Barry Hawkins:
> > I replied to that posting[0], and I don't think the discussion yielded
> > a lack of support for using version numbers in .jar file names.
>
> The points you listed
Am Dienstag, 18. April 2006 22:23 schrieb Barry Hawkins:
> I replied to that posting[0], and I don't think the discussion yielded
> a lack of support for using version numbers in .jar file names.
The points you listed are:
1.) Java(TM) libraries have a notorious tendency (not unlike other lan
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 01:23:56AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
[...]
> I propose that the requirement to add the upstream version number to
> the jar installation and the symlink from the non-versioned name be
> dropped. Discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] showed that no one really
> knows what thi
Package: java-common
Version: 0.23
Severity: wishlist
I propose that the requirement to add the upstream version number to
the jar installation and the symlink from the non-versioned name be
dropped. Discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] showed that no one really
knows what this is supposed to be for,
6 matches
Mail list logo
