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: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:54:33 -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=kNVbPGwzg1q/DbFudjcyB1y7CG13MrVFbdp5Lxku1tg4usoGtR8yFXBanP0EowCN4lFD3UY8i/QdhLNBGMRNd3euJdT9nLK0gf4xeE/UOMxje+CBcfNb2i/Imu1qWtjudKg0WZeub2zMQc5F+4XQIebIMvreTOvLHr7uc1jAgLM=

On 8/19/05, Tom Scavo
<>
wrote:
> 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 wonder if custom/lib and $IDP_HOME$/lib should be blown away for
every install? Are there any undesirable side effects of doing that?

Tom



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page