On Monday 25 of January 2016 17:07:49 Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> Pavel> This is probably build product
>
> It is a set of source files. You can't deny that.
> You want the source, you get it.
> The build script is missing, but *.spec is much better then as you
> would be absolutely sure that nothing "unexpected" passes through.
>
> Pavel>we can't bundle stuff like that.
>
> There's no need to bundle that. It is a compile-time dependency to
> build OSGi-enabled pgjdbc.
Bundling is both about technical and non-technical issues. So I would
consider this as bundling.
> Vladimir>> if everybody redistributes the jar?
> Pavel>I don't understand this, can you elaborate please?
>
> From my experience, 99.9% of projects redistribute the required java libraries.
> I've never seen cases when the jar files were pulled from PRMs coming
> with the OS.
Ah, thanks. Yeah, I agree -- that will major set of Java projects.
There are pros/cons; but this is again off-topic.
I just need to state that I discuss here to advocate different approach
(don't download the libraries over-and-over again).
> I wonder if there are live uses of "pgjdbc.rpm".
LibreOffice depend on pgjdbc, at least. We provide jdbc in Red Hat
Enterprise Linux, because it is used by JBoss for example. But it is not
just about this, those are just examples.
It is really that simple -- I need pgjdbc because I need to access
PostgreSQL server from my rather simple Java project.
So far I have to either use old jdbc driver, or use maven -- but if I do
require maven, I can't package my package into any distribution. So I
rather don't use Java at all. Yeah, chicken-egg problem.
> Pavel> I'm working on small Java project that needs to connect to
> Pavel>PostgreSQL.
>
> Virtually all development requires not just "jar files" that can talk
> to the database, but development requires "javadoc&source" jars.
> Javadoc&source jars are used to look into pgjdbc source
> code&documentation and double-check if the method you are going to
> apply indeed does what you think it should do.
Right, all distributions provide source and documentation. Or if not, it
is a bug and nobody asked yet. Usually (GNU GPL) you have to provide the
source, so this is strict rule of Red Hat at least.
Pavel