On Wed, 11 May 2005, Steve Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I recently spent some time looking over jpackage.org. Have you guys > seen this operation?
More than that. We modified the Ant wrapper script to suit their needs, so that they could stop distributing their version, for example. We've had some fruitful collaboration in the past. I used to be subscribed to their dev list but had to cut down on activities, so I dropped out of it. > They don't like builds that depend on downloading stuff from the > internet. Etc. They hate circular dependencies. Like me ;-) > They're somewhat annoyed with Ant. It's hard to talk to them. I've not seen that, if so, something must have changed over the past six months. Anything special? > In that world, they have a heck of a time building Ant from source > since Ant (its optional tasks, anyway) depend on things like > commons-net, which depend on Ant to build. Chicken-egg again. Not really. They have separate RPMs for Ant and for ant with optional tasks. You only need the Ant RPM to build commons-net, and you need Ant and commons-net to build the ant-apache-commons-net RPM. > It seems to me that Ant is really at least two beasts: > > 1. a tool for running strictly java compiles and packaging into > jars, wars, etc. But everybody will have a different opinion what makes up this core. <copy>? You bet. <chmod>? For those RPM builders probably yes. <war>? _I_ don't think so. > (this may or may not equate exactly to Ant's core vs. optional tasks > - e.g. why is cvs core, but other vcs optional?) historical reasons. <cvs> was there before any optional task came along. I guess <script> was ther first one labeled optional. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
