From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hartmut Goebel Subject: Should java .jar-filenames include the version? Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:01:03 +0200 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------68546DEE10F1B4B2C0BC117C" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59671) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhy18-0001Co-Ue for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2016 08:01:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhy12-0004UM-Qe for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2016 08:01:18 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([2001:a60:0:28:0:1:25:1]:33904) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhy12-0004Tf-HM for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2016 08:01:12 -0400 Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3sVJny3wlbz3hkxG for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:01:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.68]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3sVJny3PnyzvlJL for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:01:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.68]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JVnAXJopH6eK for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:01:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermia.goebel-consult.de (ppp-188-174-159-255.dynamic.mnet-online.de [188.174.159.255]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:01:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from thisbe.goebel-consult.de (hermia.goebel-consult.de [192.168.110.7]) by hermia.goebel-consult.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FED860777 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:01:03 +0200 (CEST) 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: Guix-devel This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------68546DEE10F1B4B2C0BC117C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 =2Ejar-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.) --=20 Sch=C3=B6nen Gru=C3=9F Hartmut Goebel Dipl.-Informatiker (univ), CISSP, CSSLP, ISO 27001 Lead Implementer Information Security Management, Security Governance, Secure Software Development Goebel Consult, Landshut http://www.goebel-consult.de Blog: http://www.goebel-consult.de/blog/bestanden-iso-27001-lead-implementer Kolumne: http://www.cissp-gefluester.de/2011-10-aus-der-schublade-in-die-koepfe --------------68546DEE10F1B4B2C0BC117C Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.)


--
Sch=C3=B6nen Gru=C3=9F
Hartmut Goebel
Dipl.-Informatiker (univ), CISSP, CSSLP, ISO 27001 Lead Implementer
Information Security Management, Security Governance, Secure Software Development

Goebel Consult, Landshut
ht= tp://www.goebel-consult.de

Blog: http://www.goebel-consult.de/blog/bestanden-iso-27001-lead-impleme= nter
Kolumne: http://www.cissp-gefluester.de/2011-10-aus-der-schublade-in-die-ko= epfe

--------------68546DEE10F1B4B2C0BC117C--