Re: Should java .jar-filenames include the version?

[Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com>]

Hello,

I prefer including the version. Consider the following
situation. Package foo has version A and B, both installing to path
~/.guix-profile/share/java/ (symlink to store). When the user installs
both version A and B, there will be a conflict. Please note that I do
not know java very well. Will those jar files be installed to different
locations instead of ~/.guix-profile/share/java/ if we switch to maven
later?

By the way, does java / maven has something similar to so name for abi
compatibility?

Thanks,
Alex

Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@goebel-consult.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
> as I'm going to release patches for some java packages, I'd like to
> get consent on one point:
>
> Should java .jar-filenames include the version?
>
> This only effects those .jar for which there is no build.xml (or
> equivalent) is present and thus #:jar-file is to be specified.
>
> The jar-files currently packaged do not include the version, but most .
> jar-files build using a build.xml or maven .pom seam to include it.
> OTOH, the version is already in the prefix, thus it is redundant.
>
> What do you think?
>
> (I personally do not care much, I just want to avoid duplicate work.)