(I'm sorry, for some reason I didn't CC the list with this mail, either) * Benjamin Pasero <bpasero@xxxxxxxxxx> [2005-07-25 18:02]: > > > >That won't really work unless we can patch FC's JFace build stuff to allow > >the JFace jar in the system to have the same dependency removed. But it's > >a good step forward. > [...] > Hm, but if I supply a jface.jar that is compiled into RSSOwl jar, that does > not have any dependency to Eclipse anymore, doesn't that help? Or is there > another JFace on the Classpath on FC, that is used first, before looking > into RSSOwl's one? We've already got JFace in FC so we should be using it where we can. We need to be able to build all the code we ship from source. What I've done in the specfile I posted is to patch the build.xml to not explode the jars that we have RPMs for already (we will have to make this all jars before we can put this into Fedora Extras) and just tack those onto the classpath for the java command. I tried in vain to get MANIFEST.MF to include the jars in the system on its "Class-Path" line, but eventually gave up and went back to the java -cp <blah> net.sourceforge... in /usr/bin/rssowl. It would be nice if we could find some way for both you (upstream) and us (downstream) to use the same build.xml but I'm content with maintaining our own rssowl script for running (since you don't have one upstream and it's so small) and patching out the unjarring of the jars from other packages. Andrew
