Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

shibboleth-dev - Re: bugs in extension-build.xml

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

Re: bugs in extension-build.xml


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tom Scavo <>
  • To:
  • Subject: Re: bugs in extension-build.xml
  • Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:07:24 -0400
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GA6tD6Mnf06xLSODtq04z0CdvwpuCHF9krkxuF3NMfy9Us0honpv0Xds1jSvHssoIwwixrp1Iaw0e/VaVyHSs5lWKD8JZ5p/bLlCKkasi+Uuq9CEXFdax7EVtuvjSF12hGJUim+eE06YFIKTeWciPGIh7te8Z1AlztEX7zL6gfc=

On 8/19/05, Scott Cantor
<>
wrote:
>
> What about other cases where an extension had its own supplementary lib
> files that *did* have the version in the name, and the new extension uses a
> newer version? Actually, this is true across extensions, which is even
> worse.

Yup, even Shib itself has this problem. If a Shib distribution
modifies a 3rd-party jar, it's safest to change the base install
directory $IDP_HOME$.

> I already think we've gone way farther in the build/install arena than was
> expected, and way beyond what any other Java application seems to support.
> It's a slippery slope, and now we're sliding.

I wouldn't go that far. The new install process is working well for
us, minus a few annoying bugs (which I've committed to bugzilla) none
of which are showstoppers.

Thanks,
Tom



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page