From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vong Subject: Re: Should java .jar-filenames include the version? Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2016 19:23:10 +0800 Message-ID: <87vay5s4f5.fsf@gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60356) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1biJu2-0005Ep-5L for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 07:23:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1biJtx-0004Qi-QT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 07:23:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]:32867) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1biJtx-0004PY-Iy for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 07:23:21 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-x234.google.com with SMTP id cm16so27692151pac.0 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 04:23:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Hartmut Goebel's message of "Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:01:03 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Hartmut Goebel Cc: Guix-devel 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 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.)