Bug 121

---- Reported by karltk 2004-11-19 17:54:03 ----

I am on the Java team on the Gentoo project, and we would like to bundle jogl
with our distribution.

However, the release files from the jogl project are unversioned, making it
impossible for our users and our package system to distinguish two downloaded
versions of the jogl-src.zip files from each other. 

This effectively prohibits us from packaging jogl.

We kindly request that future releases of jogl-src.zip and javadoc_public.zip
have the full version of the release in the filename on the form
jogl-src-1.1b07.zip, jogl-javadoc_public-1.1b07.zip.



---- Additional Comments From kbr 2004-11-19 17:58:24 ----

I don't understand exactly what you're asking for. Do you want just the source
bundles to include the version number, or also the jar files?

Why is it not possible for you to infer these names from the folder from which
you download the distribution? Downloading these files is a manual process
anyway, because java.net's servlets generate random numbers for file IDs.




---- Additional Comments From daw 2004-12-03 15:33:12 ----

*** Issue 107 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***



---- Additional Comments From ashak 2006-01-20 00:46:33 ----

I find it hard to believe that no one followed up on this unless it has been
discussed elsewhere. 

From my experience with Gentoo, certain files cannot automatically be downloaded
by portage (the Gentoo /package/ manager). So they must be manually downloaded
(as the previous comment states is the case with the jogl files). I know there
are already a number of packages in the portage tree which require this (mainly
Java packages like the Sun Java SDK, Suns Java3d, etc.). Therefore this is not
necessarily a problem, however, each version of a package within the portage
tree also contains digest information for the relevent source files. I assume
this is mainly to work out whether the file/s that are about to be extracted are
valid. This works quite well if I download some-app-1.2.3.tar.gz to install
version 1.2.3 of some-app as it alerts me if the file that I have downloaded is
corrupt or not. If however the source file name does not contain version
information (like the jogl files) then it causes problems with a number of things:
1) If you try to upgrade when a new version is released it's not necessarily
obvious that the file portage is trying to use is not the new version as it has
the same file name as the previous version, so portage will simply complain that
the source file digest does not match the required file
2) It makes telling users which file to download alot more difficult as finding
jogl-src-1.1b07.zip is far easier than finding jogl-src.zip, because there are
lots of jogl-src.zip files, whereas there would only ever be one jogl-src-1.1b07.zip
3) I'm not sure if anyone would want to do this, but having non-versioned source
files would make it pretty much impossible to install multiple versions of jogl
on a Gentoo system without constantly moving files around each type you wanted
to install/reinstall a specific version of a package.

Anyhow, i'm adding this comment to try and convey the importance of a versioned
source file to the Gentoo project, I for one would love to see jogl in the
default portage tree, however the Gentoo developers are unwilling to do so until
a versioned source file is available in some shape or form. Obviously there
would be no reason to version nightly build files, just the /proper/ releases.

I'm sure there are other important reasons why Gentoo requires a versioned
source file that I am not aware of, maybe someone could add those to this issue too?

I know it's also possible that the Gentoo developers (with the jogl developers
permission) could mirror the relevent files on the Gentoo mirrors, with a
versioned file name, but I believe there's been talk about prefering not to do
it this way as it's alot of additional work and would require a maintainer,
whereas (hopefully) releasing versioned source files would not be anywhere near
the amount of work and (technically) already has a maintainer.



---- Additional Comments From kbr 2006-11-15 00:31:10 ----

With some changes that were just checked in to the build.xml to fix Issues 227
and 249 I believe this issue can now be closed as fixed. In subsequent nightly
builds and releases the new distribution archives (the format of which will
mimic that of JSR-231 1.0.0) will have version numbers in the file names. Please
reopen this bug or open a new one if the changes are not sufficient. Please note
though that the nightly builds will be offline for a few days while the machines
are being moved.




--- Bug imported by sgothel@jausoft.com 2010-03-24 07:47 EDT  ---

This bug was previously known as _bug_ 121 at https://jogl.dev.java.net/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=121

Unknown bug field "has_duplicates" encountered while moving bug
   <has_duplicates>
     <bug_id>107</bug_id>
     <who>daw</who>
     <when>2004-12-03 15:33:12</when>
</has_duplicates>